Final Evaluation Report for People Exiting Institutions ... · NSW Homelessness Action Plan...

FIN

AL

REP

OR

T

Family & Community ServicesHousing NSW

NSW Homeless Action Plan Evaluation

Final Evaluation Report for People Exiting Institutions Projects

4 March 2013

NSW Homelessness Action Plan EvaluationExiting Institutions Summary Report

Page | 2

Roger West/ Sue Warth/ Marg Scott

WestWood Spice

21A Elliott Street

Balmain NSW 2041

Ph: 02 9555 4429

Fax: 02 9352 3443

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.westwoodspice.com.au

Copyright WestWood Spice 2013

CFW Spice Pty Ltd trading as WestWood Spice ABN 17 095 066 318


Page | 3

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................5

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................11

1.1. Overview of HAP evaluation.............................................................................................11

1.2. Overview of service model and projects for exiting institutions evaluations ..................12

1.3. Governance arrangements...............................................................................................14

2. LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................................................15

2.1. Types of housing and transition models ..........................................................................21

3. EVALUATION SCOPE AND METHODS............................................................................................26

3.1. Ethics process ...................................................................................................................26

3.2. Summary of methods .......................................................................................................26

3.3. Limitations........................................................................................................................27

4. FINDINGS – SERVICE MODEL ........................................................................................................28

4.1. The effectiveness of the service model for client outcomes ...........................................28

4.2. The critical factors for success..........................................................................................32

4.3. Key challenges in this approach .......................................................................................37

4.4. The impact of the projects on service systems ................................................................39

5. FINDINGS – COST ISSUES ..............................................................................................................40

5.1. Cost effectiveness of the approaches ..............................................................................40

5.2. Cost differentials ..............................................................................................................42

5.3. Cost benchmarking...........................................................................................................42

6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................43

6.1. Summary of key lessons learnt.........................................................................................43

6.2. Implications for the future response to homelessness....................................................45

6.3. Implications for specific client groups who are exiting institutions.................................45

6.4. Other insights gained that can enrich the evidence base ................................................47

6.5. Future research that could strengthen the evidence in this area....................................47

Appendix 1: References ........................................................................................................................49

List of Tables

Table 1: Exiting Institutions projects: Comparison of client target groups ............................................6

Table 2: Exiting Institutions projects: Comparison of client target groups ..........................................13

Table 3: Housing outcomes...................................................................................................................29

Table 4: Project cost comparisons ........................................................................................................40

Table 5: What is working and what could be improved? .....................................................................43


Page | 4

List of Abbreviations

AHURI Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

AOD Alcohol and other drugs

CALD Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

CAP Crisis Accommodation Program

COSP Community Offender Support Program

CRC Community Restorative Centre

CSC Community Service Centre

CSNSW Corrective Services NSW

CTI Critical Time Interventions

FACS Department of Family and Community Services

FNC Far North Coast

HAP Homelessness Action Plan

JJ Juvenile Justice

JTAP Joint Tenancy Assistance Program

LSI-R Level of Service Inventory – Revised

MCREU Melbourne Criminology Research and Evaluation Unit

MNC Mid North Coast

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NPAH National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness

NRSDC Northern Rivers Social Development Council

PSI Parolee Support Initiative

RHC Regional Homelessness Committee

SDRO State Debt Recovery Office

SHS Specialist Homelessness Service/s

THaSS Targeted Housing and Support Services

YP Young person/s

YPiCHS NSW Young People in Custody Health Survey 2009

YPLC Young People Leaving Care


Page | 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

People leaving child protection, custody and health facilities are a priority target group for assistance

to access and maintain stable, affordable housing, under the 2009-2013 Australian National

Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH). The NSW Homelessness Action Plan 2009-2014

(HAP) is aligned with the objectives of NPAH.

As part of the NSW Homelessness Action Plan a number of projects are funded to prevent

homelessness in people exiting institutions. Four of these projects were selected for the HAP

extended evaluations. Each project targets vulnerable clients with interlinked complex issues and

problems, dealing with difficult transitions from living in structured institutional settings to living in

the community, or moving from foster care to independence. These points of transition are

identified as presenting particular risks for becoming homeless in the absence of support and access

to suitable accommodation.

Two of the projects, based on the North Coast of NSW, target young people (Young People Exiting

Juvenile Justice Centres and Young People Leaving Care Support Service); the other two projects

target adults (Targeted Housing and Support Services and Sustaining Tenancies). All projects had a

primary goal of preventing homelessness and for three of the projects, an additional objective of

reducing re-offending.

The lead government agencies for the projects are Juvenile Justice NSW and Community Services for

the youth projects, and Corrective Services NSW for adults leaving custody projects. In the context of

their relevant Regional Homelessness Action Plans, these agencies partnered with established local

non-government organisations to implement each project and deliver the client services.

The service model for all projects involves a multifaceted approach, incorporating support for

accessing accommodation on exit into the community, intensive tailored case management support

and access to relevant services over an extended period, typically of 12 months. Where possible,

support is commenced prior to leaving the institution (ideally 3 months prior). A major focus is

supporting clients to sustain tenancies and build skills to live independently in the community. All

projects have a focus on improved community integration and coordination of services centred on

client needs.

Caseworkers provide a range of client supports directly as well as referrals to relevant services and

programs, where available, to build individual skills, improve physical and mental health, reduce

substance abuse, develop literacy, numeracy and employment skills, facilitate family reunification,

improve capacity to navigate service systems and increase social integration. Individual care/

support plans provide holistic tailored care phased over the period of participation in the service,

with reducing intensity as clients become more settled into the community.

Evaluation process

The evaluation methodology was similar across all projects, consisting of a review of the relevant

literature (“what works” for the target group), development of evaluation instruments, review of

available project documentation (including administrative and reporting data), stakeholder

consultation (with a cross section of key informants, including a small sample of clients from each

project), and visits to the service setting. It was not feasible to undertake surveys of stakeholders,

given the high number of different stakeholder groups, their diversity and small numbers involved in

the various projects. For program clients there was also a high likelihood of a very low response rate.


Page | 6

For the reasons above the evaluations were small scale, largely descriptive and drew predominantly

on qualitative data from stakeholder consultations. For all projects there were limitations in the

administrative data available and its reliability, particularly with regard to services and entitlements

accessed and received. These could have impacted the outcomes. The findings are also limited by a

lack of baseline data and no matched controls, and insufficient timeframes for follow-up of longer-

term outcomes. Similarly, it was not possible to follow-up exited clients who had not completed

their program.

Key findings

The evaluations found that although each project differed somewhat in target groups and setting,

across all projects there were clearly identifiable benefits for clients and for local services. Over the

period to June 2012 the projects supported a total of approximately 175 clients (86 young people

and 89 adults) to access and sustain housing. Social housing was the most common type of housing

secured. Some clients have had their own home for the first time in their lives.

Table 1: Exiting Institutions projects: Comparison of client target groups

Characteristics 2.21 2.22 2.8 2.10

Age range 14-24 years 16-24 years 25-60 years 20-53 years

Gender

Male 75% 50% 0% 80%

Female 25% 50% 100% 20%

Cultural Background

Aboriginal 56% 44% 36% 90%

Non-Aboriginal 44% 56% 64% 10%

Location MNC & FNC MNC & FNC Western Sydney Broken Hill

Total project

Target #’s to 30 June

2012

16 56 40 37

Actual #’s to 30 June

2012

27 59 55*(24 exited) 34*(20

exited/left)

* Numbers reflect number of clients accepted into the service.


Page | 7

Demonstrated benefits for clients include:

Reduced homelessness;

Improved emotional well-being and social integration;

Reduced substance abuse;

Improved physical and mental health;

Increased living skills including literacy and numeracy, budgeting and household

management; and

Increased confidence and capacity to access mainstream services.

These outcomes were reported individually by clients and observed by service providers, but

outcomes could not necessarily be validated by specific instruments, or were found in individual

case notes. Reduction in homelessness figures were derived from client and stakeholder reports,

including HAP portal data and in some cases, baseline data at point of entry to the project. It was not

possible to determine if clients would have been homeless without the project intervention.

All clients interviewed reported feeling more positive and optimistic about their life and future

prospects. Service providers commented on greater engagement with services by clients, together

with increased capacity and confidence of some clients to navigate service systems. Restoration of

children was very important to the women in the THaSS project as well as one male client

interviewed for the Broken Hill project. Across all projects, family reunification was a significant

client outcome.

There were positive outcomes in education and training, employment and job-readiness, and

participation in employment initiatives. In Broken Hill, where employment options are limited for

this relatively low skilled target group, the CRC established “Choppa Weed”, an innovative social

enterprise that has given men work experience in gardening and maintenance. Actively supporting

client attendance at the local Jobs Network agency and collaboration with the local “Strive to Drive”

learn to drive program has seen several men gain driving licences in Broken Hill for the first time.

Both the THaSS and the Sustaining Tenancies projects targeted a majority of clients who were

assessed1 as either medium to high or high risk of re-offending, and it appears that the service

delivery was well matched to this target group. Reports of reduced re-offending2 by clients and

improvements in behaviours linked to re-offending, including improved anger management and

reduced drug use, were noted by clients and service providers as important outcomes. It was noted

by Probation and Parole interviewees that some adult clients completed Probation and Parole orders

for the first time ever. Changes in offending behaviour may have been assisted by a range of factors

such as participation in other programs (Probation and Parole, Drug and Alcohol) and not solely due

to participation in the project. That said, the projects all had a strong focus on supporting clients to

access services and programs in a sustained way to ensure they gained the benefits of all available

general and specialist services.

1Using the Corrective Services NSW Level of Service Inventory Revised (LSI-R) scale.

2Detailed analysis of adult re-offending as recorded by Corrective Services NSW was not possible due to the

short time-frame of the project and the fact that re-offending is measured at 24 months following release fromcustody or the end of a community based order.


Page | 8

All funded services developed effective partnerships and collaborative working arrangements with a

wide range of other generalist and specialist service providers and this has been of great benefit for

clients in accessing accommodation as well as a wide range of other support services. This also

confirms the consensus view in the literature that a critical factor of success for these client groups is

to have a wide range of relevant services working together and focussed on client needs. An

important outcome in all projects and reported repeatedly by service providers has been improved

local service integration and coordination, resulting in new referral pathways and an overall

increased appreciation and understanding of the nature of issues presented by the client groups.

The projects were funded at different levels for varying target numbers of clients. The annual

budgets for 2011/2012 were $200,431 (Sustaining Tenancies), $484,093 (Young People Leaving

Juvenile Justice), $783,625 (Young People Leaving Care) and $868,560 (THaSS). On crude estimates,

average per capita client costs of service provision ranged from $28,952 (THaSS) to $12,371 (Young

People Leaving Care). Funding is only partly reflective of levels of need. Estimates did not take

account of the varying lengths of time over which clients received support, nor the costs of other

services and support, including costs of re-incarceration where this occurred. Brokerage costs varied

per client according to available budgets and client needs.

Success factors and challenges

Common factors contributing to the success of the projects relate both to the multi-component

design of the service model and its implementation, with each element being important but unlikely

on its own to be sufficient for success. The key success factors identified were the following:

Access to accommodation, providing a stable foundation for clients;

Support to sustain tenancies;

Individual tailored case management over an extended period, supporting clients through

critical transition periods, challenges and setbacks;

Support to access to other services;

Phasing of intensity of services, reflecting different levels of client needs and progress;

Quality of caseworker support for clients;

Attention to staffing issues to ensure cultural safety for Aboriginal clients;

Support for restoration of children, for women in particular, both by selecting suitable

accommodation and providing support through various court and agency processes;

Judicious use of brokerage funding according to individual needs;

Building on existing relationships and expanding partnerships to support client needs;

Taking a proactive advocacy role for clients; and

Providing access to a service independent from justice services for clients with a history of

offending.

The major challenges common to all projects has been a lack of available and affordable housing,

limited access to specific client support services (particularly accessible drug and alcohol

rehabilitation facilities in regional areas), and shared difficulties recruiting and maintaining staff to

support client needs.


Page | 9

Conclusion and implications

The four projects to prevent homelessness in people exiting institutions share some common

features and elements of service delivery that broadly reflect current best practice.

The projects stand at two ends of the lifespan spectrum of addressing disadvantage and

homelessness; early intervention and prevention for young people at one end and “breaking the

cycle” intervention for repeat homelessness and incarceration for highly disadvantaged adults at the

other end.

The youth projects show significant overlaps between the client groups of young people in the

juvenile justice system and those leaving care. There are valuable opportunities for intervening early

to break the cycle of young offenders and prevent a lifelong trajectory of repeat episodes of

offending and imprisonment. Addressing the many complex issues that were faced by young people

accessing the projects was a lengthy process. Case management support needs to be available over

a sufficiently long period of time to allow for a setback or failure to be dealt with and resolved.

Involving Aboriginal workers in a mainstream service was a powerful way to secure program

engagement amongst Aboriginal youth.

For the adult projects, the evaluation confirmed that access to a model of intensive, multifaceted

service over an extended period can be effective in supporting clients through the risky transition

periods after leaving custody, to facilitate their settlement into the community. For some, this has

broken the long term cycles of homelessness and offending and provided a more optimistic future,

at least over the period covered by the evaluation.

As reflected in the literature, the evaluation findings confirmed that a “one size fits all” approach is

unlikely to be effective for these complex client groups. Holistic client focussed services, involving

collaboration across different government and non-government organisations and delivered over a

sustained period, resulted in a range of important positive outcomes for these client groups.

Attention to quality staffing and provision of culturally safe services is particularly important given

the high proportion of Aboriginal clients in these target groups and the urgent need for effective

interventions to break the cycles of intergenerational trauma.

Detailed cost analysis of the projects was not undertaken as part of the evaluations; however some

inferences can be drawn about the potential longer term system savings which may be possible

through investment in these types of interventions as they are targeting clients who impose high

costs on service systems, particularly criminal justice systems in the case of those who offend.

In relation to the youth projects, relative cost effectiveness of the approaches needs to be

considered in the context of the increased value of timely investment early in the life of a young

person. These target groups of young people have risk factors that are indicative of a costly

trajectory going forward. The recent study on lifecourse institutional costs of homelessness for

vulnerable groups (Baldry et al 2012) suggest that early and well-timed interventions to establish

and maintain secure housing and associated support services are likely to curtail longer term societal

costs of service demands and interactions with the criminal justice system. Amongst the 11 case

studies in their research, lack of adequate services early in the lives of the individuals was associated

with very costly criminal justice, health and homelessness interactions and interventions later in

their lives, with an estimated individual life course cost of between $900,000 to $5.5 million.


Page | 10

The evaluation findings of the adult projects were indicative of reduced re-offending and possibly

reduced re-incarceration, which can only be confirmed with longer term analysis of CSNSW data.

Even though the studies are small scale and based predominantly on client feedback and anecdotal

stakeholder reports, these are positive indications that warrant further evaluation frameworks be

developed with specific attention to processes to assess longer term system savings, given the very

high justice system costs for inmate custody and community supervision.

The projects, while all based on best practice principles, were implemented within a very tight

timeframe, without robust project plans linked to articulated change theories/ logic models, with

clearly defined outcomes and progress indicators. In particular the portal reporting did not capture

the detail of individual circumstances and outcomes in a range of domains. Nevertheless, as pilot

projects, all have demonstrated significant positive benefits in highly disadvantaged and vulnerable

target groups, particularly in reducing homelessness, which was the primary emphasis of all projects.

The projects warrant further development and refinement and implementation over an extended

period with more focussed attention to specific service elements (level of service intensity and

duration, support to access mainstream services, case management effectiveness, quality of service

partnerships, provision of accommodation, types of accommodation). It would be instructive to

monitor the differential impacts that these have on specific client variables and service outcomes.

There need to be more clearly defined outcomes and indicators to enable tracking of client

outcomes and service utilisation data over time. This could also enable closer scrutiny of costings

and potential cost effectiveness and the potential contribution of the service investment in overall

system savings.

The recently released Going Home Staying Home Reform Plan of specialist homelessness services

(SHS) reflects a shift from crisis to early intervention and prevention and the adoption of flexible

service responses to complex clients and an individualised/ needs based approach (NSW

Government 2013). The common elements in the design of the exiting institutions projects service

models clearly align with this approach and provide indicative evidence of its efficacy.

In sum, the exiting institutions HAP project evaluations should be seen as providing evidence to

confirm that a comprehensive, individualised/ needs based approach to client service delivery is an

effective structure within which to develop transition solutions to prevent homelessness for these

target groups.


Page | 11

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Overview of HAP evaluation

In 2009, the NSW Government released the NSW Homelessness Action Plan 2009-2014 (HAP). It sets

the direction for state-wide reform of the homelessness service system to achieve better outcomes

for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The HAP aims to realign existing effort, and

increase the focus on prevention and long-term accommodation and support.

The HAP also aims to:

Change the way that homelessness and its impact on the community is understood;

Change the way services are designed and delivered to homeless people and people at risk

of becoming homeless; and

Change ways of working across government, with the non-government sector and with the

broader community to improve responses to homelessness.

Under the HAP there are three headline homelessness reduction targets, which are:

A reduction of 7% in the overall level of homelessness in NSW;

A reduction of 25% in the number of people sleeping rough in NSW; and

A reduction of one-third in the number of Indigenous people who are homeless.

The HAP includes approximately 100 NSW Government funded local, regional and state-wide

projects which assist in achieving the homelessness reduction targets. As at June 2012, 55 of the

projects were funded through the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH). The

remaining projects include other programs or services that contribute to addressing homelessness.

The projects are aligned to one of three strategic directions:

Preventing homelessness; to ensure that people never become homeless;

Responding effectively to homelessness: to ensure that people who are homeless receive

effective responses so that they do not become entrenched in the system; and

Breaking the cycle: to ensure that people who have been homeless do not become homeless

again.

Ten Regional Homelessness Action Plans (2010 to 2014) were developed to identify effective ways of

working locally to respond to local homelessness and provide the focus for many of the HAP

projects.

HAP Evaluation Strategy

The HAP Evaluation Strategy has been developed in consultation with government agencies and the

non-government sector. It involves three inter-related components, which are:

I. Self-evaluations – The purpose of self-evaluation is to gather performance information about

each of the HAP projects across key areas in a consistent way, and to collect the views of

practitioners about the effectiveness of their projects.


Page | 12

II. Extended evaluations – The purpose of the extended evaluations is to analyse and draw

conclusions about the effectiveness of 15 selected projects and the service approaches to

addressing homelessness that those projects represent. The service approaches covered by

the extended evaluations are:

Support for women and children escaping domestic violence;

Youth foyers;

Support for people exiting institutions;

Tenancy support to prevent evictions; and

Long term housing and support.

III. Meta-analysis – The purpose of the meta-analysis is to synthesise the aggregated findings

from the self-evaluations and extended evaluations as well as other evaluations available on

HAP activities.

The HAP evaluation will assist with measuring progress towards meeting the HAP targets as well as

provide evidence of effective responses and lessons learnt that should be considered in the future

response to homelessness in NSW.

1.2. Overview of service model and projects for exiting institutionsevaluations

The first strategic direction of the NSW Homelessness Action Plan is preventing homelessness and a

key priority is to “transition and maintain people exiting statutory care/ correctional and health

facilities into appropriate long-term accommodation”. A number of projects were funded to assist

these target groups and of these, four projects providing support for people exiting institutions were

selected for the extended evaluations. The four projects are:

Project 2.8 Targeted Housing and Support Services (Western Sydney) (THaSS)

Project 2.10 Sustaining tenancies following exits from correctional facilities (Broken Hill)

(Sustaining Tenancies)

Project 2.21 Young People Exiting Juvenile Justice Centres (North Coast) (SWITCH [JJ])

Project 2.22 The Young People Leaving Care Support Service (North Coast) (SWITCH

[YPLC])

Each of these projects target vulnerable clients dealing with a difficult transition, either from living in

a structured institutional setting to living in the community, or moving from foster care to

independence. These points of transition are identified as presenting particular risks for becoming

homeless in the absence of support and access to suitable accommodation.

A foundation of the model of each of these four services is the provision of holistic support,

individually tailored to client need. This includes intensive case management and referral to

appropriate services (where available) over an extended period, typically 12 months. A primary focus

is on securing appropriate accommodation as soon as possible and ongoing support to sustain the

tenancy and prevent homelessness.

The client groups for projects 2.21 and 2.22 respectively are young people who are leaving care, and

young people exiting Juvenile Justice facilities. In practice, there is a large overlap between these

groups; many of those in Juvenile Justice have an out-of-home care background.


Page | 13

Projects 2.8 and 2.10 both support adults who are exiting custody. In the case of project 2.8 the

focus is on women exiting custody in Western Sydney, while the focus of project 2.10 is people

released from Broken Hill Correctional Centre (predominantly Aboriginal men).

The clients of all of these projects present with complex, interlinked issues and problems, and there

are overlaps across the target groups (as indicated above for projects 2.21 and 2.2.2). In summary,

the projects represent two ends of the lifespan spectrum with early intervention and prevention for

young people at one end and “breaking the cycle” intervention for repeat homelessness and

incarceration for highly disadvantaged adults at the other end. All projects have been established to

intervene early in the process of exiting from an institutional setting.

While the projects are similar in that they have a focus on people exiting institutional settings,

provide a similar model of intensive support, and provide services across a 12 month period; there

are also some important differences in relation to individual target groups, scale and geographic

setting. The table below provides information on client characteristics of each project as at 30 June

2012.

Table 2: Exiting Institutions projects: Comparison of client target groups

Characteristics 2.21 2.22 2.8 2.10

Age range 14-24 years 16-24 years 25-60 years 20-53 years

Gender

Male 75% 50% 0% 80%

Female 25% 50% 100% 20%

Cultural Background

Aboriginal 56% 44% 36% 90%

Non-Aboriginal 44% 56% 64% 10%

Location MNC & FNC MNC & FNC Western Sydney Broken Hill

Total project

Target #’s to 30 June

2012

16 56 40 37

Actual #’s to 30 June

2012

27 59 55*(24 exited) 34*(20

exited/left)

* Numbers reflect number of clients accepted into the service.

One of the four projects was located in Western Sydney (2.8 THaSS). Being based in a metropolitan

area this project had access to a greater range of services and supports than the other three

projects, which were in regional locations (Mid and Far North Coast and Broken Hill).


Page | 14

1.3. Governance arrangements

The projects had a variety of governance arrangements, including:

A formal Steering Committee which met face-to-face quarterly in the case of SWITCH (JJ);

A regular teleconference update in the case of SWITCH (YPLC) and its lead agency; and

An oversight group of local interested stakeholders who advised and supported the project

establishment in the case of Sustaining Tenancies project. A more formal Steering

Committee was established later for this project.

The relevant Regional Homelessness Interagency Committees (RHIC) also had varying levels of

involvement. On the North Coast, representatives from the lead agencies for both SWITCH projects

were members of the RHIC. However, although this committee was responsible for the development

of the initial project briefs, it did not appear to have any significant day-to-day role with respect to

the governance and reporting arrangements of the service providers. Similarly, with the two adult

projects there was minimal engagement with the Regional Interagency Homelessness Committee

through the projects’ implementation.


Page | 15

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

A brief review of the literature was undertaken to explore “what works” in reducing homelessness

among the two key target groups for the exiting institutions sub-group of the HAP extended

evaluation projects. This included consideration of factors that are seen as important for best

practice approaches for these target groups. As a secondary focus, the review also briefly considered

the literature relating to what works to prevent re-offending in released prisoners, specifically in the

context of the linkages between housing, re-offending and return to custody.

The issue of homelessness in these vulnerable target groups and the inadequacy of traditional

programs in meeting their transition needs has been identified as a priority by governments in the

US, UK and Canada as well as Australia. A core focus of implementation of the 2009-2013 Australian

National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH) is assistance for people leaving child

protection, custody and health facilities to access and maintain stable, affordable housing.

Significant funding is beginning to support the exploration of innovative service models in Australia

and other countries, however it is too early to access evaluative data from these new initiatives to

determine with any confidence what outcomes are being achieved, for which target groups, and

through which program components. The NSW government in its implementation plan for the NPAH

considers that increasing the evidence base is a critical element of driving reforms to the service

system.

It is widely reported that there are limited published evaluative studies of interventions to address

homelessness in general and very few in the target groups of interest (AHURI 2009). In particular

there is limited research evidence about non-metropolitan homelessness and effective responses to

this in Australia (AHURI 2009). However, there is an emergence of descriptive and qualitative studies

that are contributing to the evidence base about effective practices for people leaving custody and

young people leaving state care and protection. There appears to be a growing understanding of the

complexity of factors and the dynamic interactions between these related to the circumstances of

these members of the community (Willis & Makkai 2008).

Recently there has been increasing attention to, and innovation in, transition and re-entry programs

which prepare people to leave institutions and support them once they exit into independent living.

There are some small scale descriptive studies of these. However, there continues to be virtually no

formal evidence of “what works” specifically in preventing homelessness for these target groups (BC

Ministry of Housing and Social Development [undated], Everson-Hock et al, 2011; Hadley, 2010;

Mares and Jordan, 2011, Muller-Ravitt and Jacobs, 2012: National Reentry Resource Centre, 2012;

Baldry et al 2003, Baldry et al 2007, Fontaine & Biess 2012, WIPAN 2012) Many of the programs that

have been evaluated involve small sample sizes, largely descriptive studies and problematic research

designs.

There are significant challenges inherent in undertaking robust large scale quantitative evaluations

of interventions to address homelessness, not the least of which is the well recognised

interconnection of multiple factors that are compounding and difficult to separate as variables. This

is particularly the case in the complex inter-linkages between homelessness, offending and

recidivism (Willis & Makkai 2008, Lackner 2012). Most innovative programs aim to achieve multiple

goals, with multiple components to address the complexity of linked contributory factors. In the

Corrections realm in particular, reducing homelessness may be only one of a number of goals that

are secondary to the primary goal of reducing re-offending and recidivism and facilitating

resettlement and integration into the community. Measuring impact on homelessness per se is less


Page | 16

important, and disentangling which elements in particular may have led to impacts on homelessness

is problematic. Caution has also been noted regarding use of re-offending rates as a sole measure of

effectiveness of programs aiming to address the complex factors linked with homelessness and

recidivism (Cunneen & Luke 2007).

In some early examples of post-release programs for prisoners, such as the Bridging the Gap

program introduced into Victoria in 2002, it was noted that the model was designed without

detailed knowledge of the problems that were being addressed and consequently without a clear

theoretical or practice model to frame the response (MCREU 2005). This limited the extent to which

the evaluation could infer causal relationships from the outcomes that were identified in the

evaluation which appears typical for many studies.

Links between homelessness and post-release from custody

There are recognised links between having suitable, stable and supported housing to facilitate

resettlement into the community and reducing re-offending in released prisoners and unsuitable

housing has been noted to be a major factor in unsuccessful transition to life outside custody and

hence higher risks of recidivism (NSW Homelessness Alliance 2011, Willis & Makkai 2008, Fontaine &

Biess 2012). However, the nature of the linkages is not yet well understood, nor the extent to which

criminogenic and other factors play a role along with housing.

A range of factors have been identified as barriers to prisoners finding suitable accommodation in

post-release studies (Meehan 2002, Willis & Makkai 2008, Fontaine & Biess 2012, NSW

Homelessness Alliance 2011). Lack of coordination between appropriate government and non-

government agencies post-release is also identified as a key contributor to inadequate service

provision (Meehan 2002, Baldry et al 2007, Fontaine & Biess 2012, NSW Homelessness Alliance

2011).

Studies in Australia and overseas indicate that women are considered to be at higher risk of

homelessness than men post-release. In addition to assistance with accommodation, assistance is

required with finances, employment and family reunification along with services to address women

ex-prisoners’ higher risk of poor mental and physical health (Baldry et al 2003, Baldry 2007, Lackner

2012, Desai 2012). There are currently inadequate housing and tailored ongoing support services to

assist women and assistance to access housing alone, is in itself, inadequate. A recent small scale

qualitative study by Women in Prison Advocacy Network in NSW reveals some of the complexity of

needs of women exiting custody, including the importance of safety (WIPAN 2012). Aboriginal

women in particular have been noted to have specific needs that are not currently being met in

relation to dependent children, housing, family, friends and associates connections, alcohol and

other drugs, culture and trauma (Baldry & McCausland 2007, Desai 2012).

There are some major challenges in defining and determining housing status and rates of

homelessness for Indigenous people (Biddle 2012), however, it is well established that Indigenous

Australians have both proportionately higher rates of homelessness overall and much higher rates of

incarceration than non-Indigenous Australians, reflecting their overall disadvantage in the

community (Australian Human Rights Commission 2005, NSW Government 2013). Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander people are estimated to have homelessness rates three times the rate of the

non-Indigenous population (ABS 2011). There is also a higher risk of return to custody associated

with Indigenous status (AHURI 2004, Willis & Makkai 2008) and this is further compounded by higher


Page | 17

rates of alcohol and drug use. In the 2011 inmate census in NSW, Aboriginal men represented 22.3

per cent of the total male inmate population and Aboriginal women represented 30 per cent of the

total female population (Corben & Eyland 2011).

The 2009 Young People in Custody Health Survey (YPiCHS) identified that Aboriginal young people

and young people with complex needs are over represented in the juvenile justice system. Young

people of Aboriginal origin make up approximately 50% of young people in custody, despite making

up around 4% of the adolescent community in NSW.3

The same survey showed that amongst all young people in custody, 87% had mental health issues,

78% were found to be risky drinkers and 65% had used an illicit drug at least weekly in the year prior

to custody. Overall, 27% of all young people in custody had been placed in out-of-home care before

the age of 16 years, but this proportion was higher for both young women (40%) and Aboriginal

young people (38%). All of this indicates key areas where young people leaving Juvenile Justice are

likely to need support.

Links between homelessness and youth

As with ex-prisoners, young people leaving care experience higher rates of homelessness than young

people in general, with family breakdown, including neglect, conflict and abuse being major risk

factors (McDowell, 2008, Homelessness taskforce 2008). Other causal (and overlapping) factors

include mental health issues, unemployment, poverty, alcohol and other drug issues, and crime

(Barker, 2010).

Young people aged 12 to 24 years represent 28% of the homeless population in New South Wales

(Counting the Homeless Report)4 and it has been well established that experiencing homelessness

early in life is a significant risk factor for long-term homelessness. A 2010 review of Juvenile Justice

noted that a large number of children and young people remain on remand in Juvenile Justice

centres due to a lack of stable accommodation, either because they are homeless or unable to

return home due to family breakdowns or safety concerns (Noetic Solutions 2010). This underscores

the need for sound effective prevention programs, including support for the provision of stable

housing for young people especially young people who are more vulnerable through their leaving

care or juvenile detention status.

Best practice characteristics for homelessness prevention

The AHURI research synthesis on homelessness suggests that improving homelessness outcomes

requires:

Involving mainstream agencies in homelessness response;

Coordinating government, non-government and emergency agencies in providing housing

and support;

Building trusting support relationship over time;

Using multidisciplinary case management teams;

Providing support services addressing identified need; and

Providing permanent supportive housing rather than transitional accommodation

(AHURI 2009).

3p 11 Indig, D, et al, 2011, 2009 NSW Young People in Custody Health Survey: Full Report, Justice Health and

Juvenile Justice, Sydney.4

The report used 2006 Census data.


Page | 18

Additionally, for those exiting institutions:

Coordination and planning prior to institutional exits are critical to ensuring housing needs

are considered and options explored;

Comprehensive support to address a range of issues and challenges faced by individuals

exiting institutions is required pre/ during/ post institutionalisation;

Intensive support for independent living programs may be more appropriate for early

intervention with young people that have complex needs;

Post-housing support is critical for maintaining stable accommodation and beginning the

process of social reintegration; and

Experiencing homelessness under 18 is a significant risk for longer term homelessness

(Willis 2004).

Young people leaving care

The seminal longitudinal research conducted by Cashmore and Paxman (1996, 2007) finds that

young people leaving care are required to negotiate a number of changes in their lives earlier and in

a much shorter period of time than other young people of the same age. Their research suggests

that a young person’s transition to adult life will be better negotiated when it is staggered (e.g.

people have the opportunity to remain in care to complete their secondary education), stable

accommodation is provided, financial help is available, and social support provided after leaving

care. Their insights into the predictors of likely success or failure in aftercare indicate factors such as

poor educational attainment, marginal employment, short-term and poor quality accommodation,

poor mental health and limited social support diminish life chances.

With respect to young people leaving care, the literature suggests that while housing is a critical

dimension (Gronda 2009), the presence of reliable, sustainable social relationships is also important

(Johnson et al 2009). In responding to the multiplicity of interlinked factors that young people face,

effective case management is critical. A key dimension of this is the development of positive

relationships between workers and service users, involving the development of trust and the

promotion of choice for young people (FaHCSIA 2012).

The literature confirms that other important dimensions of effective service delivery include:

Collaborative work (Kang et al 2005, Kidd 2003);

A strengths-based approach, which is flexible and forgiving (Cauce et al 2000);

Individualised assessments, goal setting and planning;

Capacity building, both of the young person and staff (Bruce et al 2009); and

Continuity of care (Crimmens et al 2004).

The service task is not only to resolve practical immediate requirements for stable and suitable

accommodation, but to identify and address underlying psychological, emotional and social needs

and foster greater independence and self-determination. The research shows that individuals who

have experienced volatile transitions are more likely to be successful where they have addressed

their substance abuse issues, developed improved relationships with family, found the right support

and found employment. Young people who received transition support were overall more likely to

complete compulsory education, be in current employment, be living independently and be less

likely to be young parents (Everson-Hock et al 2011).


Page | 19

With respect to young people leaving care in NSW, it was recently reported that:

Only 18 per cent of 15 to 17 year olds in New South Wales had a leaving care plan, despite it

being a legislative requirement of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act

1998;

Less than 60 per cent of young people in New South Wales out-of-home care knew about

the access to Transition to Independent Living Allowance; and

35 per cent of young people become homeless within the first year of leaving care

(McDowell, J 2008).

This suggests that there is a need to assist young people leaving care with negotiations around their

leaving care plans, accessing their entitlements, support to secure and sustain stable housing, and

time to learn what it is to live independently.

People exiting custody

There is increasing evidence that supporting ex-prisoners to re-integrate (or indeed integrate) into

society post-release requires adoption of a multi-pronged approach to address a range of factors to

prevent homelessness and recidivism. These include specific attention to identified risks of re-

offending (Lackner 2012, Fontaine et al 2012). In Australia, as elsewhere over recent years, there has

been increasing recognition of “Throughcare” as best practice in working with offenders to reduce

recidivism and assist community integration (Borzycki 2005, Willis and Makkai 2008, Lackner 2012).5

Ideally, this also incorporates integrated case management and community based aftercare on

release, linked with post-release services and programs. However, the extent to which

implementation of “Throughcare” strategies are implemented in prisons in Australia and the impacts

of these is not yet clear (Baldry 2012).

Little is known internationally about the most effective housing and transition models for Aboriginal

people leaving custody (Desai 2012, Baldry 2007). In re-iterating the lack of evidence of effective

models of post-release housing and support for Aboriginal women in particular, Baldry (2007)

suggests that programs with an emphasis on “Throughcare”, aftercare with a case management

approach, and underpinned by a holistic philosophy are likely to have the greatest benefit.

Providing support to access suitable accommodation is a key element of post-release, and failure to

address housing arrangements adequately prior to release can increase the risk of homelessness and

failure to resettle in the community (Willis & Makkai 2008, Desai 2012). It has been claimed that

appropriate housing “can also serve as the literal and figurative foundation for successful re-entry

and reintegration for released adults” (Fontaine and Biess 2012). However, “research is scant on

how specific housing models in and of themselves, can lead to better outcomes for (ex-prisoners) …

and the specific housing models that can improve outcomes” (Fontaine and Biess 2012).

5Throughcare has been defined as the continuous, coordinated and integrated management of offenders from

the offender’s first points of contact with correctional services to their successful reintegration into thecommunity and completion of their legal order (Clay 2002, cited in Baldry 2007).


Page | 20

A number of factors have been identified as essential in successful post-release services for prisoners

(Borzycki and Baldry 2003):

Individually tailored case management, following risk assessment, using reliable tools and

incorporating prisoners input;

Case plan development, outlining programs and access to services as soon as possible after

prison reception;

Brokerage of services from organisations best equipped to provide services;

Demarcation of staff responsible for supervision and staff responsible for social and other

supports; and

An understanding that individuals may easily become overwhelmed if confronted with a

range of reporting requirements following release.

A number of authors also emphasise that the definition of service success needs to extend beyond

recidivism to consider small gains and improvements in other factors related to offending, such as

pro-social behaviours and evidence of social integration (Borzycki and Baldry 2003, Cunneen and

Luke 2007). Fontaine and Biess (2012) also state that “Successful re-entry and reintegration

encompasses more than reductions in re-offending and re-incarceration; it includes changes in

individual behaviours associated with re-offending and re-incarceration, such as reductions in

substance abuse and other risky behaviours, increased family functioning and social support,

educational attainment, gainful employment opportunities and wages, and participation in pro-

social activities, such as community groups, faith activities, and volunteer or recreational groups.”

The available evidence of “what works” in reducing recidivism specifically highlights the importance

of using the “risk principle” – that is, focussed attention to the risks associated with re-offending

(and thereby risking tenancies and homelessness) (Latessa 2006, Bonta et al 2010). This approach

results in improved outcomes with a reduced risk of re-offending, sustained tenancies, and reduced

risk of homelessness where the level of service provided is matched to the risk level of the offender.

This sets the criminogenic needs as the target of the intervention, with high risk clients receiving

more intensive services, and incorporates responsiveness in matching the style and mode of

intervention to the ability and learning style of the offender (Bonta et al 2010).

In NSW, Corrective Services NSW uses a validated risk assessment tool - the Level of Service

Inventory – Revised (LSI-R) to assess prisoners’ risks of re-offending (Corrective Services 2012). The

tool assesses a range of static (unchanging) and dynamic factors that are known to be associated

with offending. These include age at first conviction, number of convictions (static factors), level of

alcohol or other drug use/ dependency, antisocial attitudes/ thinking, behaviours and associates,

family/ marital problems or instability, and low levels of education and employment (dynamic

factors). Although the tool is well validated among many population groups, its robustness for

Aboriginal women is known to be limited (Corrective Services 2012).


Page | 21

2.1. Types of housing and transition models

Generally, from the literature, the examples of housing models for the exiting institutions target

group fall into two categories: supportive housing and specialised re-entry programs.

Supportive housing encompasses models that:

Involve multiple funding sources and usually involve partnerships between multiple non-

profit providers with different areas of expertise;

Provide permanent, affordable housing that is closely linked with supportive services, often

delivered at the housing site (flow or floating care);

Provide comprehensive social services to tenants using a case management model; and

Do not typically include criminal justice supervision.

Specialised re-entry programs (transition programs) are a recent innovation within the broader

category of supportive housing. Specialised re-entry programs:

Are specifically designed to meet the needs of people being released from custody;

Provide case management and counselling services tailored to releasees;

Provide specialised re-entry housing, often linked to transition planning activities (i.e.

beginning in the correctional institution itself). This can include, for example, transportation

from the correctional facility, entitlements and benefits advocacy, family reunification

services and legal advocacy;

Sometimes include programming or units set aside for people with special needs (e.g.

mental illness, substance addiction, HIV/ AIDS), providing additional services; and

Typically involve some form of criminal justice supervision as a pre-requisite for living in this

type of housing (AHURI 2009).

A recent report by Gaetz and Scott (2012) argues that a clear distinction needs to be made between

youth homelessness and adult homelessness and, as a result, different solutions are appropriate.

They discuss the challenges of the expectation identified by Cashmore and Paxton (Cashmore, J and

Paxman, M 2007) that young people can make a speedy transition to living independently. Key

variables are:

Age: the younger one is, the more adolescent challenges complicate one’s transition to

adulthood, with youth thrust into adult roles at an accelerated rate. Impacting on this is:

o neurological changes in adolescence impacting on cognitive development and effective

decision-making; and

o legal constraints on those under 18 years of age (such as levels of social security, ability

to sign a lease);

Poverty and discrimination: making it more difficult to access affordable and safe housing;

Family support;

Experience with independent living; and

Experience with child protection services or involvement with the law.

Gaetz and Scott (2012) argue that young people need a service model that allows them time to grow

and learn, and to make mistakes. This is particularly so for young people leaving institutional care,

whether child protection or correctional care. These young people have underdeveloped life skills,

inadequate education and lack of supports and resources (including income) that most young people

rely on when moving into adulthood.


Page | 22

Youth transition models

An important program for homeless young people with complex needs in contact with the juvenile

justice system is the Joint Tenancy Assistance Program (JTAP). The target population for JTAP is

homeless young people or young people at risk of long-term homelessness in contact with the

juvenile justice system, with complex needs, who are 16 to 18 years old at the time of the referral.

Accepted and developed as a program over the past 12 years, JTAP has informed the development

of the North Coast Juvenile Justice project, which is one of the projects in the exiting institutions

extended evaluations. JTAP provides a staged approach under an intensive case management

structure over a period of 12 months. Participants complete a series of goals moving towards

independent living, maintaining a tenancy, developing support networks, and participation in

education/ employment/ training. An option exists to repeat phases as necessary. The original JTAP

model included the provision of semi-supported housing through a partnership with a community

housing provider and Housing NSW.

A 2009 evaluation of JTAP, found that the elements contributing to its success are flexibility, skilled

joint case management, phased approach, service networking, brokerage and cultural sensitivity.

Other youth models

British Columbia Homelessness Intervention Project – the project is in its third phase and is

developing pilot projects to test an established “single integrated team” approach with

youth exiting foster care and adults exiting correctional institutions. An evaluation by a team

of academic researchers observed that “the short-term outcome data [concerning people

who have been sentenced in BC] indicate that HIP has the promise to succeed where

previous interventions and initiatives has failed” (BC Ministry of Housing and Social

Development, undated).

Youth Villages Transitional Living – this program currently operates in seven US States. The

program supports troubled youth to transition to independent living. Core features of the

program include assessment, safety plans, a youth driven approach, positive family

relationships, housing assistance and highly structured staff supervision and consultation. A

methodologically rigorous evaluation is underway which specifically explores the outcomes

(including homelessness) of program participation on youth leaving foster care (Muller-

Ravitt and Jacobs, 2012).

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has commissioned a study of

programs that assist youth who are aging out of foster care within the context of the

Opening Doors federal homelessness initiative, to be completed in 2012 (United States

Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2011).

Models for people leaving custody

There is a range of integrated post-release programs and services in Australia and overseas which

incorporate support for accessing suitable housing along with other supports. Most post-release

programs have a number of goals, with multiple strategies and are frequently focussed on reducing

re-offending; few are focussed on reducing homelessness alone. Many are specifically targeted to

people with either mental illness or drug addictions. Very few to date have been rigorously

evaluated, but emerging data is contributing to understanding the complexity of factors at play, and

more robust data on effective interventions is likely to be forthcoming in coming years.


Page | 23

The Bridging the Gap program

The Bridging the Gap program piloted in Victoria from 2001-2003 was a forerunner of post-

release services in Australia, and involved a cooperative effort by five community based

support agencies and Victorian Corrections, with each of the support agencies having a

defined target group within the program. The program involved 286 participants, targeting

high risk and high need offenders with drug or alcohol issues. It was an intensive post-

release transitional support program providing direct services and supporting access to drug

and alcohol treatment, accommodation, education, health, legal assistance, training and

employment, family reconciliation and child care and custody. Evaluation of the pilot

showed positive outcomes in relation to reduced drug dependence, participation in

treatment programs and accommodation status. Approximately 50% of participants had

stable accommodation at the end of their engagement in the program. Participants had

lower rates of post-release offending while in contact with their support agency than

comparable non-participants. Evaluation of Bridging the Gap revealed key lessons:

o Many prisoners have always lived on the margins of society to the extent that short

term interventions are unlikely to bring about fundamental changes in their lives;

o A major goal of post-release programs should be effective engagement with

mainstream services;

o Effective reciprocal relationships between workers and participants are fundamental to

success;

o Effective coordination and collaboration between program and broader services is a

vital factor; and

o The Bridging the Gap services at times found they were in competition with other

agencies or programs, in particular in accessing suitable accommodation (MCREU

Melbourne 2003).

There are integrated systems in NSW and arrangements between various government and non-

government agencies to support enhanced offender re-integration into the community post-release.

Corrective Services NSW has developed the “Throughcare” framework for integrated offender

management, using evidence based community and custody management of offenders. Corrective

Services NSW also funds or facilitates a wide range of services and programs to assist inmate

integration back into the community. Since 2008, there has been a specific allocation of resources

for accommodation post-release, and CSNSW funds a number of special purpose transition

accommodation support facilities and services:

Community Offender Support Program (COSP) NSW

The COSP was introduced in centres across NSW in 2008 to fill identified service gaps for

higher risk offenders on parole or community based orders for 3-6 months. There are three

intake streams which are: reintegration and resettlement, crisis accommodation and case

management placement. They have a specific focus on “Throughcare” to community

reintegration and resettlement and will often accommodate people who are excluded from

other services. To date, no evaluative data is available about the effectiveness of COSP.


Page | 24

Community Restorative Centre (CRC)

Some specialised services such as the Community Restorative Centre (www.crc.org.au) (CRC)

in NSW have a core purpose of supporting prisoners during incarceration and post-release to

help resettlement back into communities and to reduce the incidence of people re-offending

and returning to custody. CRC receives funding for a number of transition models that have a

strong focus on a “housing first approach” recognising the importance of stable

accommodation as an important platform for resettlement. CRC provides a range of direct

services to reduce the stress of transition from custody to the wider community such as

employment, health, finance, housing, identification, family re-unification and dealing with

debt.

Parolee Support Initiative (PSI) NSW

The PSI delivered by the Community Restorative Centre is funded by Corrective Services

NSW and provides comprehensive support to parolees in the Liverpool/ Fairfield/

Parramatta areas with serious mental health issues and/or cognitive impairment, throughout

their period of transition from custody back into the community. It seeks to reduce the cycle

of homelessness and re-offending incorporating a “housing first” model with wrap around

care, floating and flexible support and strong partnerships with other organisations. Housing

NSW provides accommodation and CRC delivers intensive outreach support of up to 20

hours per week, commencing three months prior to release to identify post-release needs.

Support needs may include mental health and disability services, drug and alcohol support,

employment, budgeting, shopping, and tenancy maintenance. Although the client numbers

are small, the PSI has demonstrated positive outcomes for clients and evaluation data will be

forthcoming.

As noted previously there are recognised links between housing and re-offending, however it is not

yet clear to what extent provision of housing can be a factor in reducing recidivism and for which

people. There is a need for further research to gain a more robust evidence base about the causal

factors involved in reducing homelessness and/or re-offending in this population. Many programs

appear to not control for risk of offending in evaluating interventions and outcomes.

Overseas models

Early signs from recent initiatives in the UK and the US employing a Social Bonds approach to

reducing recidivism appear to be showing considerable promise with repeat offenders

through provision of integrated services for prisoners and families and intensive support into

the community (Hems, L 2012).

FUSE - the US Coalition for Supportive Housing (www.csh.org) Frequent User Service

Enhancement initiatives are based on the premise that supportive housing can break the

cycle between homelessness and criminal justice involvement. FUSE uses a systems change

model which has three key pillars: (1) data-driven problem-solving, including identification of

high-cost, high-need individuals who are shared clients of multiple systems; (2) policy and

systems reform aimed at shifting resources towards the more cost-effective and humane

solution of permanent housing and support services; and (3) targeted housing and services.

FUSE is currently operating in at least twelve states in the US and provides both generic

supportive housing, and specialized re-entry housing, some for people who have jail and

homeless shelter histories and substance abuse and/or mental health issues. A preliminary


Page | 25

outcomes assessment, using a quasi-experimental evaluation model with a matched

comparison group, indicated that FUSE participants maintained stable housing at a higher

rate (85%) than those in the comparison group (Coalition for Supportive Housing, 2011).

After twelve months, only sixteen per cent (16%) had any shelter admission compared to

98% of the treatment group (Coalition for Supportive Housing, 2011).

Another example of a FUSE specialised re-entry program is the Hennepin County

(Minnesota) FUSE which involves interagency collaboration between county corrections,

housing and social services. A key feature of the program is a community NGO providing in-

reach services to link individuals to supportive housing upon exit from the institution.

In Ohio, a FUSE program was set up to place 100 people with mental illness exiting from

custody into supportive housing. Once again, multiple agencies were involved, including

corrections, housing and mental health, and a key element was the in-reach support services

offered prior to discharge.

The Coalition for Supportive Housing has an ongoing evaluation plan to examine longer term

outcomes, including homelessness (Coalition for Supportive Housing 2009).

There is some recent evidence to indicate that provision of housing is more likely to be

effective in impacting re-offending when targeted at high risk offenders, together with

interventions carefully targeted to address offending behaviours. This was confirmed in a

recent American study of housing and support interventions for people with mental illness

and ex-offenders which looked specifically at the impacts on recidivism (Miller and Ngugi

2009).

Evaluation of a recent Ohio study with ex-prisoners confirmed that a combination of

supported housing and support to address a range of other factors reduced recidivism, with

matched controls across 13 prisons in the 12 months following release. The findings

indicated that a major success factor was the contact with a support worker, however it is

not certain if risk of re-offending was specifically controlled for (Fontaine et al).

The Oxford House model, a specific housing treatment model for individuals with histories of

substance abuse, is based on the principles of self-governance and mutual support and

research has shown that individuals with substance abuse histories who live in Oxford

Houses are less likely to re-offend, are less likely to use substances, are more likely to be

employed, and spend less time engaged in criminal activities (Jason and Ferrari 2010; Jason

et al. 2006). However, the Oxford House model is appropriate for only a subset of those

released from custody (i.e. those released with substance abuse issues who agree to a peer-

led recovery model) (Fontaine and Bess 2012).

Critical Time Interventions – CTI is a time-limited, case management model designed to

prevent homelessness and other adverse outcomes in people with mental illness following

discharge from hospitals, shelters, prisons and other institutions. CTI provides emotional and

practical support during the critical time of transition to the community and by

strengthening the individual’s long-term ties to services, families and friends (Critical Time

Intervention, 2013). There is no evidence yet of effectiveness in preventing homelessness for

people exiting custody however, it is likely that there will be further evaluation of a CTI

program recently introduced in the UK (Jarrett, Thorneycroft, Forrester, et al, 2012).


Page | 26

3. EVALUATION SCOPE AND METHODS

3.1. Ethics process

All projects were subject to the ethics processes required by their lead agencies.

For Project 2.21, where the lead agency was Juvenile Justice NSW, approval by the Juvenile Justice

Research Steering Committee was required. This committee is not an ethics committee and projects

are often required to secure external ethics approval before the research committee accepts a

project. For the Young People Exiting Juvenile Justice Centres project, acceptance was granted

without specific ethics approval based on the fact that the research was using the same research

protocol which is being used for all projects involved in the extended evaluation of the NSW HAP

which had received approval from the University of NSW Human Research Ethics Committee and

Corrective Services NSW. The approval by the Juvenile Justice Research Steering was granted on 18

September 2012.

For Project 2.22, where the lead agency was Community Services, there was no mandated ethics

approval process, however, similar to the Juvenile Justice Research Committee position outlined

above, ethics approval from the University of New South Wales for other HAP evaluation projects

was sufficiently broad to cover the conduct of the evaluation of Project 2.22.

Ethics approval for Projects 2.8 and 2.10 was secured from Corrective Services NSW Ethics

Committee, which was formally granted on 9 October 2012.

For all four projects, a plain English information sheet and client consent form was developed,

adapted from a standard document provided by Housing NSW.

A $30 gift voucher was provided as an incentive for the clients who were interviewed.

3.2. Summary of methods

The evaluation methodology across all projects was similar involving:

1. A brief literature review (see Section 2 of this document).

2. A review of available documentation from Housing NSW, the contracting/ lead agencies and

the service delivery non-government organisations.

3. Initial briefing meetings with key informants including lead agencies and service providers.

4. Review of relevant administrative data and reports:

a. Portal data submitted to Housing NSW for each of the quarters of the projects from

September 2010. As figures were cumulative across the financial year, the June 2012

figures were used for the analysis of 2011/2012 outcomes;

b. Self-evaluation reports provided by the lead agencies to Housing NSW at the end of

June 2012;

c. Selected client case notes (for interviewed clients only who had given informed

consent).

5. Development of interview guides for clients and for service providers (See Appendix 2 & 3).


Page | 27

6. Key informant and stakeholder interviews and site visits to service settings in Western

Sydney, North Coast and Broken Hill.

a. The site visits afforded an opportunity to see the settings of the services and to

interview the various service providers as well as enabling interviews with a number of

other stakeholders. There were additional follow-up telephone interviews with other

stakeholders where it was not possible to meet face-to-face.

b. Client interviews: Service providers assisted in arranging interviews. However, not all

individuals attended as scheduled on the day. A $30 gift voucher was offered to clients

as an incentive to participate. The numbers of clients interviewed were 2.8 (6), 2.10 (5),

2.21 (3), 2.22(7).

c. Stakeholder interviews: These were a mixture of face-to-face and telephone interviews

with a cross section of relevant stakeholders who included:

i. lead agency informants;

ii.HAP service provider staff; and

iii.other service providers (Probation and Parole, housing providers, Centrelink, health

and other service providers, employment agencies, police and real estate

agents).

3.3. Limitations

Each of the evaluations was of necessity largely descriptive, drawing predominantly on qualitative

data, together with available administrative data from service providers and lead agencies as well as

evaluation data submitted to Housing NSW. Across all projects there were limitations in the

administrative data available from services regarding some specific client details (for instance

services accessed, entitlements received, indicators or measures linked to client outcomes).

The findings are limited, as they are an exploration of what worked effectively for individuals. While

the findings may be indicative of outcomes for the broader target group of clients, they cannot be

generally extrapolated to the larger population for a number of reasons:

First, the sampling size for each project was small and there were no matched controls; it

was not possible to include individuals who were referred but chose not to join the project/s

or who left the project prematurely; and once clients exited the project after 12 months they

were not able to be followed up to capture sustained outcomes;

Second, baseline data was not available for the projects, nor was the evaluation set up to

collect baseline data;

Third, with delays in project set-ups, several of the pilots had been providing services for

clients for under two years at the time of the evaluation and longer term impacts were not

possible to determine; and

Finally, the evaluations provide a snapshot in time of the pilot projects rather than any

longitudinal information.


Page | 28

4. FINDINGS – SERVICE MODEL

All project goals were broad, with an underlying focus on achieving stable, sustainable housing and

meeting a range of individual needs that can impact adversely on housing stability. Each was also

concerned with improving service integration and coordination. Preventing homelessness and

addressing risks associated with homelessness were the core focus of all projects as part of

supporting clients to transition to a settled community life following exit from institutional care. In

three projects, the service focus also included addressing issues and behaviours associated with

offending and an additional objective of reducing re-offending.

Evaluation data that informed the findings included quantitative and qualitative data drawn from

administrative and reporting data together with anecdotal reports and interview responses with a

cross section of stakeholders.

4.1. The effectiveness of the service model for client outcomes

The evaluations all confirmed there were significant benefits for clients from engagement with the

project and accessing a service model which was multi-faceted. The evaluation evidence points to

positive outcomes across a range of important areas, including accommodation/ housing, reduced

offending, improved mental and physical health and social and emotional well-being, skills

development, employment and other important social integration factors. The timeframe for the

evaluation meant that longer-term follow-up was not possible for most clients, particularly those

who had left or been exited from the projects following the twelve month case management period.

A few clients who had completed their program were amongst those interviewed regarding their

views of the effectiveness of the service model.

Projects provided a wide variety of services and acted as a referral point to assist clients to access

additional services which would meet their complex needs. This included support with physical and

mental health issues, dental health, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, access to education, training

and employment, trauma counselling, anger management, parenting and child care issues, financial

and budgeting skills, independent living skills training, legal issues, family mediation and transport.

Housing Outcomes

In the absence of robust data on homelessness for the client groups, it could not be stated with

certainty how many clients would have been homeless in the absence of the projects. However, to

the extent that clients were successfully housed or existing accommodation arrangements stabilised

(for example, kinship placements in the case of young people under the age of 16 exiting the juvenile

justice system), all projects had an impact on reducing homelessness.

Client self-reports about their confidence in maintaining their housing arrangements into the future

and their improved ratings of their quality of life, compared to before the intervention of the

project, suggest that the projects have been a major factor in avoiding (and in some cases

ameliorating) homelessness.

The client characteristics of the target groups serviced by all projects match those described in the

literature as predictive of high and very high risk for homelessness. The changes in client outcomes

for some key risk factors suggest that there is a potential for longer term reductions in homelessness

for these clients.


Page | 29

Accommodation was arranged or stabilised for all clients as part of their participation in the project

with a range of different types of accommodation and housing secured through various

mechanisms. In the first year of the THaSS project, 20 community housing properties were

specifically allocated through the Australian Government Economic Stimulus package for the clients

of the service. However, additional properties were not available in subsequent years for new

clients. Overall, social housing was the most commonly accessed housing type, with some private

rental. For some young people, accommodation was arranged with families or stabilised with the

use of family mediation. Temporary accommodation (TA) through Housing NSW was used for a small

number of THaSS clients when immediate access to Nation building properties was not available due

to building delays.

Table 3 below shows from the 30 June 2012 portal data, the types of housing outcomes achieved for

clients.

Table 3: Housing outcomes

Housing Type 2.21 2.22 2.8 2.10

Social housing 3 11 59 17

Private rental 3 14 2 10

SHS accommodation 1 2 1 0

Temporary accommodation (TA) 0 0 5-6 0

Temporary with family/ friends 0 3 3 7

Other 7 13 0 2

All projects needed to devote extensive efforts to secure housing for their client groups. In

particular, for projects 2.8 and 2.10 this involved developing operational partnerships with

community housing providers, which for 2.8 was essential after the first year when Nation Building

properties were no longer available.

The projects managed a range of issues faced by clients in securing accommodation. These included:

Age barriers to signing lease agreements (for young people under 18 years of age);

Low literacy and knowledge and experience with processes for securing accommodation;

Being in custody and unable to negotiate and sign tenancy agreements;

No rental history or poor rental history and in some cases, negative family reputations and

blacklisting; and

Affordability issues.

On the supply side, issues included:

Discrimination; and

Lack of suitable properties.

In the case of the two SWITCH projects (2.21 and 2.22), the existence of the program was a factor in

increasing access to private rental tenancies. Project participation gave confidence to real estate

agents in letting properties to young people, knowing both that there was another contact point

should any tenancy issues arise, and that the service would be visiting the young person regularly to

provide support and monitor progress.


Page | 30

The close working relationships between CRC and community housing providers for projects 2.8 and

2.10 were important in some case in accessing private rentals or TA until permanent social housing

was available.

Sustaining tenancies

Across all projects clients were reported to have been able to sustain tenancies successfully, some

for extended periods of time. There was limited follow up of housing outcomes after clients exited

the projects, so data on the longer term impact of the projects on sustaining tenancies were not

determined with any degree of precision. However, the exited clients who were interviewed had

successfully sustained their accommodation and a number of community housing providers reported

that clients had been successful in sustaining tenancies and/or transitioning to private rentals and

permanent accommodation. Establishing a positive rental history was an important outcome for

clients.

For many clients, both young people and adults alike, this was the first time that they had a home of

their own. Numbers of clients reported previous histories of rough sleeping. Having a home was a

particularly significant outcome for adult clients, following their histories of repeated cycles of

incarceration and leading very marginal lives.

Projects provided a wide range of support to assist clients in sustaining as well as securing tenancies,

including direct practical assistance in making appointments with appropriate housing providers/

real estate agents, writing applications and preparing for interviews, attending interviews, explaining

obligations and responsibilities and providing transport. The two youth projects developed a “Reality

Rental” course tailored for young people and based on the “Rent It Keep It” course available from

Housing NSW. Building skills in financial literacy, budgeting, managing a household and negotiating

family and social pressures all contributed to increased capacity in sustaining a tenancy.

An important factor in assisting CRC clients to sustain tenancies was undertaking advocacy with

housing providers, and maintaining a close working relationship with them, so that concerns about

clients (such as inappropriate behaviour, house guests, excessive noise) could be raised early. In

turn, CRC was able to intervene with clients to address identified issues. This was of particular

importance for some Aboriginal clients where there were family and peer network pressures and

expectations that were difficult for clients to deal with. Caseworkers were able to support clients in

dealing with “humbugging” and, by collecting the individual at the point of release assisted them to

avoid the immediate temptations and pressures to revert to risky behaviour such as alcohol and

drug taking. Support was also provided in the way of backup and advice to clients to prevent

tenancies being jeopardised by unauthorised family members staying overnight and pressure to join

in partying.

One community housing provider commented on difficulties with a small number of CRC (THaSS)

clients who left tenancies without notice and/or sustained damage to property, incurring costs for

the provider. It was a reflection of the strength of the partnership with CRC that the provider

expressed confidence that this type of issue could be raised and addressed satisfactorily with CRC.


Page | 31

Non-housing supports

As noted above, clients were provided with a diversity of services to support sustaining tenancies

and broader client transition to stable life in the community, dealing with practical and social and

emotional needs as well as addressing factors related to re-offending for those involved in the

criminal justice system. Individual case plans were developed to tailor supports to best meet the

needs of each client and these were reviewed and revised as part of the case management as clients

progressed.

A particular feature of the non-housing supports was facilitating access to available mainstream

services, including doctors and dentists, specialist counsellors, drug and alcohol rehabilitation

services, employment services, TAFE courses and other skills development and vocational training,

and legal services. Many supports were also provided directly by the services, for example,

counselling, independent living skills training, including shopping and meal preparation, family

mediation and relationship skills, and resume preparation.

Support was provided to deal with legal issues, including family law matters and attendance at court

hearings. Clients (mostly women, but some men) with children were assisted with applications and

hearings to support child restoration. Support was also provided to deal with SDRO debt matters, for

instance through Work Development Orders.

Impacts on re-offending

Based on service provider and client feedback, the findings indicate there were reductions in re-

offending, which was a significant outcome for the adult clients, although the precise extent and

nature of this was not possible to determine. For the purposes of CSNSW reporting, re-offending is

measured at 24 months following release from custody or the end of a community based order.

Therefore, for the purposes of this evaluation, re-offending cannot be analysed because the “time to

re-offend” is insufficient for most of the sample. However, there were reports by Probation and

Parole interviewees of clients having completed parole orders for the first time in their lives. Clients

reported a benefit of the project as being able to stay out of custody. For several clients the project

clearly enabled the client to break the cycle of offending.

With respect to re-offending rates, data collected by SWITCH on the 2011/2012 cohort showed that

nine of 27 clients (33 %) of clients had re-offended.6 However, when these statistics were examined,

SWITCH reported that the re-offending behaviour of these individuals happened early in

engagement with the project (Stage 1) and that some court engagement related to offences which

had been committed prior to SWITCH referral.

Other client outcomes

There were important non-housing outcomes for clients across all projects that were identified in

the evaluations, many of which related to factors of disadvantage and vulnerability. These were

widely reported by clients and a range of service providers and stakeholders and include the

following:

Family reconnection and restoration of children. Across all projects, reconnecting with family

was cited as important for a number of youth and adult clients. Supporting restoration of

6Information sourced from Attachment 3B Certified Annual Activities and Outcomes Report for 2011/2012

prepared by YP Space MNC Inc for SWITCH program for Juvenile Justice NSW.


Page | 32

children was a particular focus of women in the THaSS project and clients were supported

with court appearances, meetings with Community Services, applications, contact visits, and

securing housing to accommodate their children. Restoration of children and being stable

enough to foster relationships with their children was an important outcome for several of

the Sustaining Tenancies clients;

Improved literacy and numeracy and skills development, including in vocational, areas was

noted across all projects which contributed to engagement in job readiness activities;

Improved health, mental and physical well-being which contributed to greater capacity to

engage in activities;

Reduced drug and alcohol dependence which was marked in a number of adult clients who

had maintained drug free status for an extended period, which contributed to greater

stability and capacity to settle;

Employment experience and job readiness, for e.g. obtaining drivers licences, undertaking

work with “Choppa Weed”;

Increased self-efficacy, confidence and a more positive outlook for the future, including

expressions of pride in their achievement;

Increased confidence and capacity to access mainstream services and support, and the

therapeutic and other benefits flowing from this; and

Increased social integration.

For many clients, this was their first experience of receiving intensive personal support in a period of

transition and/or vulnerability for homelessness. This was positively experienced as having a reliable,

non-judgemental support worker available. According to client accounts, having caseworker support

and back up, even during episodes of crises and setbacks, brought an increased sense of confidence

in navigating services and systems, and increased capability to achieve positive life goals.

The projects have had relatively short-time frames in which to demonstrate sustainable outcomes,

particularly in light of the complexity and long-standing nature of some client circumstances. It may

be that some of the non-housing outcomes are attributable to other services that clients were

accessing during the period, though in many cases access to these was instigated by the projects. Of

potential longer-term significance, however, is that some of the areas of positive individual change

which have been demonstrated are identified as important factors in reducing recidivism (linked

with criminogenic risk for instance), and homelessness.

4.2. The critical factors for success

Across all projects there were a number of common features that can be seen as critical factors for

success. Some of these factors are intrinsic to the design of the service delivery model, while some

are attributable to the mode of its implementation.

Service model features that are critical are:

Provision of housing/ suitable accommodation as a stable foundation;

Strategies to support sustaining tenancies;

Provision of intensive case management support tailored to individual needs;

Staged approach to service delivery; and

Availability of support for 12 months to see clients through transition periods and possible

setbacks.


Page | 33

Housing as a foundation

Securing appropriate accommodation as a key priority, immediately or as early as possible following

institutional exit, was identified as a key success factor. This was addressed in the development of

individual care plans for each client. In all projects, it was intended that there be a period of “pre-

institutional exit” planning to allow for accommodation arrangements to be put in place, although in

reality, some clients were referred very close to the date of exiting the institution, or had been

released and were already experiencing homelessness or impending homelessness. In the case of

the Sustaining Tenancies project, several clients were referred following release.

Important elements in planning for and securing accommodation included discussion of varying

accommodation needs and, particularly in the case of adults being released from custody,

identification of potential risks to sustaining tenancies and setting in place processes to mitigate

these on release.

Attention to appropriateness of housing was also important in relation to factors such as location

and the need to accommodate children. The allocation of dedicated housing in the first year of the

THaSS project was very helpful to securing immediate housing outcomes.

Support for sustaining tenancies

The common focus on actively supporting clients to sustain tenancies through advocacy, developing

individuals’ knowledge and skills, and overall capacity building was an important contributor to

positive outcomes across all client groups.

A wide range of support services was offered by the projects that had a direct impact on clients’

ability to sustain a tenancy. These included:

Household management

Assistance with household set-up through access to financial support and the sourcing of

furniture and whitegoods, including internal brokerage support;

Assistance with financial literacy and budgeting skills;

Assistance with literacy and numeracy;

Assistance with grocery shopping and meal planning; and

Assistance with cooking and housekeeping skills.

Personal/ behavioural issues

Dealing with AOD issues/ harm minimisation and accessing services;

Anger management and trauma counselling;

Relationship counselling;

Family mediation; and

Mental health support and referrals.

Managing social and community pressures

Dealing with family and community pressures and expectations. This was particularly

important for Aboriginal clients.

Monitoring and early intervention

Monitoring and flagging concerns and problems early (e.g. rental arrears, noise,

inappropriate visitors) and communicating about these with clients and housing providers.

This was important in addressing issues and preventing escalation which could risk the

tenancy.


Page | 34

Intensive case management support tailored to client needs

Provision of case management support with varying intensity and tailored for client needs meant

that the specific needs and vulnerabilities of individuals identified through assessment could be

incorporated in case planning. Comprehensive, holistic and coordinated service planning was

provided with a caseworker generally assuming overall responsibility, with some sharing of client

support as deemed appropriate. Clients leaving custody had Individual Support Plans (ISP) developed

and in the Sustaining Tenancies project in particular, sharing client management across the team

was important in implementing these. In the SWITCH (JJ) project, Juvenile Justice retained primary

responsibility for case planning at the point of referral. For the SWITCH (YPLC) project, planning was

linked to Leaving Care Plans. Delivery of intensive case management support was provided by

SWITCH caseworkers.

Specific service access and other support needs were incorporated into client care plans to address

drug and alcohol dependence, mental health issues, specific training and skill development for job

readiness, numeracy and literacy, anger management, court and legal issues. Many of the young

people entering the SWITCH program had little prior training in the skills required for independent

living and adults leaving custody commonly required support in re-uniting with children and

reconciling family conflicts.

As noted above, an important component of planning and support for those leaving custody was

proactively dealing with issues that could negatively impact on maintaining tenancies with specific

strategies incorporated within care plans prior to release.

Staged approach to service delivery

All projects provided a model of service support that was sequenced with varying intensity according

to the stage of transition of the client. In the prison projects, the initial pre-exit or pre-release period

(of ideally three months) was for building the client-worker relationship and establishing trust and

developing a comprehensive care plan. The stages on institutional exit typically involved initial

intensive support phased gradually down over a number of stages to minimal support, as the client

became more settled and confident in independent living in the community. For adults leaving

custody, high intensity support involved up to 16 hours per day, with access to 24 hour call in

recognition of the critical transition period in the first weeks, with has a high risk of re-offending and

re-incarceration.

In the SWITCH model there were three distinct stages. The first stage, at an average of 8 hours per

week intervention, for approximately two months, focused on housing and stabilising

accommodation and early implementation of individual case plans, to meet the complex needs of

clients and assist them achieve their goals. Stage 2, at an average of five hours per week for six

months, focused on medium term planning and engagement with education, training and

employment as well as sustaining tenancies (or re-housing if required) and developing skills for

independent living. Stage 3, at an average of three hours per week for the final four to six months of

support, focused on continued support services and consolidation of gains.


Page | 35

Availability of support for 12 months

The extended period of client support was identified as being very important to allow for ongoing

support during the transition period and to accommodate dealing with individual setbacks and

crises. For many clients exiting custody, this frequently extended beyond their parole and

supervision and was of particular benefit for clients with long histories of instability and poor

integration in the community.

Other support structures available to young people exiting institutions, such as Post-release Support

programs and transition support programs for young people leaving care, are of shorter duration

and unable to provide the intensity of support of the SWITCH projects. Twelve months programming

allows time for needed skills, goals and personal growth to be achieved, and provides a measure of

consistency and stability in the life of the young person. Staff observed that SWITCH had been the

most constant element in the lives of many of the individuals in the program.

Success factors related to implementation:

Strong partnership development and extensive service networking and collaboration;

Skilled casework staff and sound client engagement;

Staff members who are Aboriginal;

Service independence from the criminal justice system; and

Support to access mainstream services.

Partnerships, networking and collaboration

With all projects needing to access suitable housing as well as a range of other services in the

community to meet the individual needs of clients, the importance of service networking and

collaboration cannot be over-estimated. All projects had sound relationships across the service

system and took a proactive approach to developing strong partnerships with key organisations and

generally strengthening comprehensive service networking and collaboration.

The strong partnerships developed between CRC and a range of community housing providers were

integral to accessing housing for projects 2.8 and 2.10, and the proactive expansion by CRC of its

partnerships and networks to a wider range of providers, including beyond the Western Sydney

region. The Sustaining Tenancies partnership with Compass Housing in Broken Hill involved a co-

location agreement, and the close proximity of staff has facilitated close communication and

collaboration in addressing a wide range of client needs and supporting sustaining tenancies in a

very timely and responsive manner.

There have been formal and informal operational partnerships and effective working relationships

established by CRC with a range of other service providers, including health and mental health

services, Aboriginal services, Centrelink agencies, and other NGOs which has supported service

access for clients.

In the youth projects, both consortium partners brought strong and extensive social capital to their

participation in the project. This enabled the projects to pursue tailor-made solutions for individuals

and to bring together the needed supports for the young person to succeed. Their sound reputation

for commitment and collaboration contributed to their effectiveness. A practical example of

partnership on the Mid North Coast was the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) developed with

a local community housing provider. This secured a property for one client and the experience with


Page | 36

the partnership led the community housing provider to modify their eligibility criteria to include

‘couch surfing’ and temporary accommodation, to better reflect the circumstances of young people

who are at risk of homelessness more generally.

In the main, there was very little community housing overall in the geographic areas served by the

projects and what existed was difficult to access because of high demand and lengthy waiting lists.

All projects adopted a strong advocacy approach to the task of securing housing both with

community housing providers and private real estate agents in their regions. Projects 2.21 and 2.22

further strengthened their links with private real estate agents through the conduct of two pilot

“Reality Rental” courses (based on Rent It Keep It).

Skilled casework staff and sound client engagement

The quality of engagement and nature of the relationship with a case manager is an important factor

in the success of young people leaving care. Across all projects the quality of project casework staff

in terms of their professionalism and strengths based approach, good communication skills,

respectfulness shown to clients, collaborative case management, early detection of issues and

prompt follow-up, their openness and dedication to following the person’s support plan, and their

proactive approach was confirmed by other service providers. This created a “no surprises”

situation, with issues raised before a crisis might ensue.

At the individual level, all clients reported that they received support and affirmation and valued

having a reliable, respectful support person.

Both the SWITCH projects and the Sustaining Tenancies project employed Aboriginal staff and this

was a significant factor in supporting strong Aboriginal client engagement in the projects and local

community buy-in. This assisted projects to provide services in a culturally safe manner, whilst at the

same time avoiding any stigma that might be associated with a service which was restricted to

Aboriginal specific clients.

Service independence from the criminal justice system

While there were strong linkages with staff of Corrective Services NSW and Juvenile Justice, in the

cases of projects 2.8, 2.10 and 2.21, for those clients with histories of offending, having workers

from a service which was not linked with the justice system was important. For the adults leaving

custody this was a strong factor in developing trust and a feeling of safety with the caseworkers. This

was a positive element also observed by Probation and Parole informants for projects 2.8 and 2.10.

Support to access mainstream services

All projects proactively and consistently worked to ensure optimum access of all clients to

mainstream services by assisting with making appointments, providing or arranging transport and

frequently accompanying clients to services. This provided the opportunity for advocacy with service

providers and support to enhance understanding of individual client histories, issues and challenges.

Supporting clients’ access to services through increased awareness of available services, assistance

to navigate systems, and support to attend services meant that clients were able to benefit more

consistently from these services than if they did not have the same level of intensive support.

Three of the projects were in regional areas where there is limited availability of public transport.

This meant that an important facilitative factor was the provision of transport solutions for clients.


Page | 37

This ranged from collecting and driving individuals to important appointments and interviews,

support to gain drivers licences, and the provision of brokerage assistance with the purchase of

bicycles. Caseworkers also commented that the time spent driving clients to appointments was well

spent as it provided another opportunity to informally check in with client progress.

4.3. Key challenges in this approach

Projects faced a number of challenges and these varied to some extent according to the project

client group, service location, and resource level of the project. The three most significant challenges

across the projects were:

Lack of suitable, affordable housing;

Limited access to services and employment in regional locations; and

Recruiting, maintaining and supporting suitable staffing.

Lack of suitable, affordable housing

This was the most common significant challenge faced by all projects with the exception of the first

year of the THaSS project. Locating suitable affordable accommodation options for clients was

difficult when projects were located in areas with limited supplies of social housing and high demand

for affordable properties. Temporary accommodation (TA) was used at times as a last resort. Access

to suitable accommodation was made more difficult, particularly for the youth projects, where more

affordable housing was located on the fringes of towns and/or in more regional areas presenting

additional challenges of meeting transport requirements with no public transport infrastructure. For

some of the less stable female clients in the THASS project it was found that being accommodated in

TA initially until permanent accommodation was secured posed some risks. This was in extreme

cases where the TA location was associated with drug use and prostitution and a small number of

clients were vulnerable to being drawn back into risky habits.

This housing challenge was addressed by service providers through the proactive development and

maintenance of partnerships. In the case of THaSS in Western Sydney, partnerships were with a wide

range of community housing providers; in the case of the North Coast projects, relationships were

developed not only with what limited community housing organisations existed, but also with the

private rental market. The Sustaining Tenancies project in Broken Hill worked in very close

partnership with Compass Housing, the only local housing provider. This was greatly enhanced

through the colocation arrangement.

For the young people in the SWITCH projects, housing access was further compromised by the

relatively low levels of income support that they can access (notably Youth Allowance). Not only did

this restrict affordability generally, but also it had an impact on access to community housing. With

rental payment set at 25% of income, young people on income support pay less than other tenants,

and this decreases their attractiveness as tenants.

Challenges also existed in securing appropriate housing for women with children, in safe locations

away from negative social networks and violent partners. For many women, being in housing which

is safe from violent partners can be a key to maintaining tenancies. A majority of available social

housing stock is in low socio-economic areas where there are relatively higher levels of risk and

negative peer networks. At times it was also difficult to secure housing with adequate rooms to

accommodate children.


Page | 38

Limited access to services and employment in regional locations

Three of the projects were located in non-metropolitan areas and this meant that there was a

general paucity of other support services for referral of clients. Most notable amongst these was the

lack of drug and alcohol rehabilitation and detox programs for both young people and adults in

Broken Hill. In the Far North Coast, use was made of youth specific AOD services in Queensland to

assist a young project participant. There were also limited mental health and dual diagnosis services

in Far West NSW, no on-going Aboriginal healing programs, and few employment opportunities for

clients.

In Broken Hill, the CRC has taken a very proactive approach to building client job readiness and

employment opportunities. Vigorous support for clients to comply with Job Network requirements

and address SDRO debts has enabled clients to participate in Strive to Drive learn to drive program

and several have received a drivers licence for the first time. CRC has also established “Choppa

Weed”, an innovative social enterprise providing gardening and yard maintenance services locally.

Eleven clients have engaged in work with the enterprise, providing some of them with their first ever

experience of real employment.

Recruiting, maintaining and supporting suitable staffing

The complexity and nature of client needs across the target groups of all projects required highly

skilled staff with particular skills in dealing with very diverse needs, and in building trusting

relationships with clients. While it had a relatively high proportion of Aboriginal clients, the THaSS

project was unsuccessful in its endeavours to recruit Aboriginal staff.

Projects met the challenges of attracting and supporting staff by the provision of regular staff

training and supervision sessions, team meetings and easy access to senior staff expertise for advice

and mentoring from within the services.

Apart from the Sustaining Tenancies project in Broken Hill, projects experienced challenges in

recruiting and maintaining adequate staffing levels for project needs.

Specific target groups needing consideration by projects were Aboriginal clients (all projects), young

people (projects 2.21 and 2.22) and consideration of service issues relating specifically to the needs

of women (THaSS). Also important in the Western Sydney project was that a number of the women

were from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds.

Aboriginal clients were well supported across all projects through carefully recruiting Aboriginal staff

who were trusted in the local community and/or ensuring that non-Aboriginal staff were highly

competent in providing culturally safe services. Aboriginal clients were also referred to available

local Aboriginal services where this was appropriate.

In the Sustaining Tenancies project in Broken Hill, almost all clients were Aboriginal and it was

important that the local Aboriginal community were consulted about and supportive of the project.

The small staff team (one Aboriginal and one non-Aboriginal) were reported to be very well regarded

in the community and aware of and sensitive to important family and community dynamics and

issues. Close involvement of the community from the outset has been a key success factor for the

project. In turn the project was reported to have had a wider positive impact on the community in

general.


Page | 39

The SWITCH projects specifically included Aboriginal youth worker trainee positions in each location.

These worked well, with the Aboriginal workers employed graduating into junior casework roles with

their own caseloads in the final year of the projects. Feedback suggested that a major strength of

this approach was that Aboriginal young people felt both supported and at the same time not

singled out from other young people, as the SWITCH service was a general youth service. The

SWITCH projects more generally had a focus on ensuring the staff recruited had appropriate youth

background qualifications and experience.

Women’ needs were specifically addressed in the THaSS project – their high and complex needs

were reflected in the low case-load allocated to caseworkers to enable them to work closely and

intensively with clients as needed. Specific consideration was given to issues such as restoration with

children and ensuring accommodation was located in a suitable area away from violent partners or

contacts and was child-friendly. Women from CALD backgrounds were referred to language and

ethnic specific services and support as appropriate.

4.4. The impact of the projects on service systems

The limited period of time of project implementation has restricted the extent to which impacts on

the broader service system can be ascertained. Nevertheless, there was strong positive feedback

from a range of external stakeholders across the four projects about the positive impacts and

benefits that the projects have brought to addressing the needs of their target groups. Key aspects

were improved coordination and integration of services with caseworkers leading or supporting

coordinated, cross-service approaches tailored to meet individual client needs.

Also noteworthy from the perspective of other stakeholders was the strength the projects in being

able to provide a 12 month period of intensive support to individuals. This degree of assistance was

previously unavailable. The consensus was that this made a real difference in client outcomes.

Clients were assisted to work through a range of issues that would otherwise impact negatively on

their ability to sustain stable tenancies. Post-release services, including Probation and Parole,

community housing providers and transition support services for young people leaving care

welcomed the service intensity and continuity provided by the projects.

A third way in which the projects influenced system change was the impact they had on increasing

the awareness of client needs within other service organisations. This was particularly the result of

proactive client advocacy and most notably for young people and women leaving custody in Western

Sydney. In the case of young people, a tangible example of benefits flowing from this was change to

service eligibility criteria for a community housing service, which now recognises “couch surfing” or

“in temporary accommodation” as eligibility categories for community housing.

There has been increased collaboration and networking between service providers with new referral

pathways and processes adopting a more holistic approach to clients, such as multi-service case

conferencing. The collaborative efforts mean that collectively services were better equipped locally

to meet the needs of people exiting institutions.

For some services, the introduction of the new service resulted in considerable saving of staff time

taken in dealing with these complex clients, and freed them up for other priority clients. This was

particularly reported to be the case for Probation and Parole in Broken Hill and Western Sydney and

also noted by a number of community housing providers, all of whom have high case-loads and

limited capacity to deal with these very complex clients.


Page | 40

5. FINDINGS – COST ISSUES

The table below provides a summary of cost comparisons across the four projects, based on

expenditure data for the 2011/2012 financial year supplied by the service providers.

Table 4: Project cost comparisons

Cost item 2.21 2.22 2.8 2.10*

Total project expenditure2011/2012

$484,093 $783,615 $868,560 $200,431

% direct staffing costs 53.9% 59.6% 74.97% 70.05%

% operational costs7

41.4% 33.6% 22.65 29.95%

% brokerage 4.7% 6.8% 2.38% 0.0%

Number of clientsserviced

827 59 30 14

Total brokageexpenditure

$22,676 $53,714 $20,656 0.00

Average brokerage perclient

$840 $910 $689 0.0

Annual per capita cost $17,089 $12,371 $28,952 $14,316

Average cost per monthof service

$1,494 $1,030 $2,413 $1,193

* Additional funding was provided to project 2.10 in 2011/2012 from underspends and permission

was granted to pool the funds for both 2.8 and 2.10 so that any future underspends could be used to

support the Sustaining Tenancies project which was funded at a much lower level.

5.1. Cost effectiveness of the approaches

As indicated in Table 4 above, across the four projects there was a variation in annual per capita

costs ranging from $12,371 in the case of project 2.22 (Young people leaving care) up to $28,952

(THaSS). This is reflective of the complexity of the needs of the individual people in the projects and

in the case of THaSS, the high staff/ client ratio, which was deemed important for supporting the

complex needs of the female clients. This led to some excess project capacity for the THaSS project

that was addressed by doubling the caseload and subsequently securing approval for underspends

to be used for the Sustaining Tenancies project.

The evaluation did not include any financial analysis of the other inputs which the program has been

able to leverage on behalf of the individuals served (e.g. access to mental health counselling, other

financial entitlements and adjustments e.g. to Centrelink payments, TA from Housing NSW) nor any

cost savings through areas such as possible decreased hospital admissions.

Direct comparisons of the proportion of funds allocated to direct service staff and administrative and

operational costs across the four projects is not possible because of the incorporation of

administrative and management staffing costs into operational costs for the youth projects.

7In project 2.12 and 2.22 operating costs include administrative and management staff costs.

8For the 2.8 and 2.10 clients these numbers represent new clients released from prison only and the total

number of clients worked with over the year was considerably greater.


Page | 41

The SWITCH program operated largely as an integrated service model across the two projects (2.21

and 2.22) with common staffing and model features. Not only did this allow for balanced caseloads

and good geographic coverage, allowing speedy responses to young people, irrespective of program

stream, but this also enhanced cost-effectiveness. This was because staff duplication was avoided

and it was easier to ensure that caseworkers were employed to full capacity.

In relation to projects 2.8 and 2.10, there were significantly different funding levels with the THaSS

project having an overall budget of $868,560 and Sustaining Tenancies only $288,000. Although the

target client numbers for 2011/2012 for Sustaining Tenancies (20) was slightly lower than THaSS

(23), both models require intensive case management for the clients, particularly in the early post-

release period of around 3 months. In fact, due to excess project capacity in THaSS, 30 new clients

could be taken on in the period through the increased caseload allocation in February 2011. Due to

the limited overall budget for 2.10, funds allocated for brokerage were used for other project

priorities including staffing and an additional vehicle that were deemed essential to the effective

operation of the model. Due to the co-location arrangement with Compass Housing considerable

operational cost savings have been made by the project which has been very important. There is

considerable scope to reduce the per client costs of the THaSS project through increasing the

caseloads for caseworkers with more careful phasing of service intensity and reduction of funds

allocated for brokerage.

For both the projects 2.8 and 2.10 the evaluation findings indicate that there has been a reduction in

re-offending and re-incarceration. However, in small studies such as these, it was not possible to

demonstrate savings in system costs for inmate custody and community supervision. The daily cost

of full time inmate custody is $174.74 (open custody) or $211.23 (secure custody) or $63,780 per

annum, $77,090 per annum (Corrective Services NSW 2011). However it is noted that for cost

savings to be made with the correctional system, complex calculations are required by Treasury and

there needs to be closure of entire wings or centres.

The cost effectiveness of the approaches, especially the support for young people, needs to be

understood in the context of the increased value of investment early in the life of a young person.

These target groups have risk factors that are indicative of a costly trajectory going forward. The

recent study on lifecourse institutional costs of homelessness for vulnerable groups (Baldry et al

2012) suggested that early and well-timed interventions to establish and maintain secure housing

and associated support services is likely to curtail longer-term societal costs of service demands and

interactions with criminal justice system. Amongst the 11 case studies in the research, lack of

adequate services early in the lives of these individuals was associated with very costly criminal

justice, health and homelessness interactions and interventions later in their lives, with an estimated

individual lifecourse cost range of between $900,000 to $5.5 million.

An interesting test of the importance of this principle of early intervention was the SWITCH JJ project

extension to pilot the employment of an early intervention court support worker on the MNC. The

role of this position was to target individuals who may be on their first or second time court

appearance and who are at risk of homelessness. The intervention of information and support,

including an option for six weeks intensive case management showed early promise in allowing a

number of young people to avoid a custodial experience and to address factors that may impact on

their future offending and homelessness.


Page | 42

For the three projects that used brokerage funding from the outset, it appeared that the funding

was adequate with an average per capita expenditure in the $600 to $1,000 range. For 2.10 there

needed to be an additional allocation made for brokerage due to the extreme disadvantage of

clients and the need to purchase household goods and other items.

5.2. Cost differentials

Within the two youth projects, the per capita cost of the SWITCH (YPLC) project was less than that of

the SWITCH (JJ) project (69%). This is largely the result of the inclusion of two streams of young

people (early intervention and case management), within the SWITCH (YPLC) project. Those in the

early intervention stream were provided with support prior to exit from leaving care. This frequently

involved working closely with a transition support service, sharing some of the support needs in the

early stages of project engagement and dealing with issues before they became more entrenched.

On the other hand, the case management YPLC clients presented with complex needs and

intervention requirements which were comparable to the SWITCH (JJ) clients.

Within the adult projects, as noted above, there were significant cost differentials with THaSS

receiving four times the funding of Sustaining Tenancies, yet servicing only double the number of

clients. The THaSS project had the potential to manage a considerably higher caseload than originally

planned and meet significantly increased targets. Brokerage funding could have been greatly

reduced due to the easier access to services and goods in a metropolitan location.

5.3. Cost benchmarking

The projects did not lend themselves to any rigorous cost benchmarking. Nevertheless, the recent

lifecourse costs study by Baldry et al (2012) above would indicate that there are significant cost

savings to be obtained by investment in a strong early intervention approach that meets the

complex needs of individuals who are exiting institutions to support successful independent living/

reintegration into the community.


Page | 43

6. CONCLUSION

6.1. Summary of key lessons learnt

All the exiting institutions projects have shown that they are able to deliver a range of housing and

non-housing outcomes, which have prevented homelessness for significant numbers of clients who

exhibit a range of vulnerabilities and risk factors which predispose them to a high possibility of

homelessness.

The table below summarises the key lessons learned about what works and what could be improved.

The implications for future responses to homelessness are then discussed in the section which

follows.

Table 5: What is working and what could be improved?

What is working? Comments

Building on existing community connections and

expanding partnerships

Existing local community connections enabled projects to

provide needed supports and referrals quickly.

Projects strengthened and extended relationships with

other key parts of the service system such as community

housing providers.

Combining accommodation and casework

support

Both elements appear essential with each component

reinforcing and complementing the other.

A proactive advocacy approach A proactive, flexible and constructive approach allowed

the development of effective tailor-made solutions to

address individual needs across a variety of domains.

Program staff advocated for individuals with other parts of

the service system.

Young people and adults who have long histories of

incarceration with complex service needs have limited

capacity to navigate the service system themselves.

Providing 12 months of support It takes time to stabilise complex issues and secure

sustainable alternatives.

A 12 month period of support was sufficiently long to

allow for a setback or failure to be dealt with and resolved.

Dealing with the multiple and entrenched often life-long

histories of disadvantage and trauma requires sustained

support.

A staged, transitional approach Pre-exit planning can occur; stages allowed for client

progress to be tracked and rewarded. Stages can be

repeated if needed.

Culturally safe services – with Aboriginal staff in

a mainstream service and culturally competent

non-Aboriginal staff

Aboriginal clients felt both supported and not stigmatised

where there were Aboriginal staff in a mainstream service.

Aboriginal staff provided improved understanding of client

needs and community issues and sensitivities.


Page | 44

What is working? Comments

Brokerage funding tailored to need Allowed for quick responsiveness to meet needs,

particularly for very disadvantaged clients.

Complemented other sources of financial support available

to clients.

Level needs to be adapted to setting and access to

resources and services locally.

Colocation partnership with community housing

provider

Enabled close collaboration between staff in the different

services and speedy response to issues which arose in

relation to client tenancies.

Consortium partnerships (Youth projects) These allowed for greater geographic coverage and sharing

of partner agency strengths.

What could be improved? Comments

Insufficient affordable housing Project efficacy could be increased by linkages to actual

housing stock (such as community housing, head lease

arrangements).

Project lead times Delayed project start times increased pressures to deliver

outcomes in shorter time frames; intake processes were

curtailed.

Some projects experienced difficulties in recruiting the full

complement of appropriately skilled staff.

No “developmental” opportunity for fully developing the

models.

Longer project times A longer duration for projects would allow for the capture

of longer term outcomes to determine if benefits are

sustained and to assess overall system savings. (This has

been further exacerbated by delayed project start times -

see above).

More robust data collection and agreed

indicators of success from the outset

Realistic indicators of success which reflect the complexity

of clients will allow for small positive changes to be

captured e.g. increased employment rates, self-reported

increases in self-efficacy and self-esteem.

Good baseline data to be collected (e.g. age of first

experience of homelessness, parental responsibilities)

Revise portal data collection/ categories to better match

project and client characteristics and outcomes (e.g.

housing types to include living with family on an ongoing

basis, non-housing outcomes to include support with

pregnancy and childbirth).

Earlier project referral The early intervention and service planning tasks could be

strengthened by earlier referrals to the services prior to

institutional exits.


Page | 45

6.2. Implications for the future response to homelessness

Part of the challenge in solving homelessness for the client groups supported by the exiting

institutions projects is accessing housing in an environment where there is insufficient appropriate

and affordable housing stock available. One of the projects was fortunate in that in its first year of

operation, it was linked to the allocation of specific community housing properties. Future projects

which are targeting people exiting institutions could be strengthened by the inclusion of more robust

mechanisms to access suitable housing. This could include:

The use of an MOU with community housing providers to prioritise access to housing;

Specific targeting of community housing properties for the client group supported by the

projects;

Coordination of access to available affordable housing across all funded homelessness

projects/ target groups in a region - perhaps by having a role in allocation linked to the

Regional Homelessness Committee structure; and

Use of “head lease” arrangements whereby providers could manage the initial tenancy

obligations associated with a property. Once a client has demonstrated the skills needed to

sustain the tenancy, the tenancy obligations could be handed over to the person/s for the

longer term.

Going Home Staying Home Reform Plan, the NSW Government's reform agenda for specialist

homelessness services is focused on a number of service and system improvements for addressing

homelessness. These include a shift from crisis to early intervention and prevention and the

adoption of an individualised/ needs based approach and flexibility of services to respond to

complex needs. The exiting institutions projects align with this closely and their core focus is early

intervention and prevention of homelessness. Similarly, the projects’ successes through the

adoption of models that are individualised and needs driven shows the efficacy of this approach.

6.3. Implications for specific client groups who are exiting institutions

Across the projects there were implications for a number of specific client groups. These were

Aboriginal clients, young people and women, and to a lesser extent, women who were from CALD

backgrounds.

Implications for Aboriginal people

Staffing considerations

Aboriginal staff who were carefully recruited and the use of Aboriginal specific trainee positions in

the case of the youth projects were important project features. Together with ensuring that non-

Aboriginal staff were highly competent in providing culturally safe services, all projects were able to

meet the needs of their Aboriginal clients as well as report good levels of satisfaction. Close

attention to provision of culturally safe services and appropriate staff recruitment should be central

to all transition services where Aboriginal people are likely to be clients.


Page | 46

Model considerations

An extended period of intensive support is vital for Aboriginal people exiting custody who have long

histories of disadvantage, intergenerational trauma and entrenched problems. For some who

experience set-backs and relapses a longer period of support beyond 12 months is important to

reduce longer term cycles of incarceration. There should be future consideration of mechanisms to

provide ongoing support in similar projects.

Implications for young people

Income support considerations

Current levels of income support for young people put them at a disadvantage when accessing

affordable, sustainable housing. This is a disadvantage not only in the private rental market but also

in accessing community housing where individuals on a higher level of income payment can be

favoured.

Model considerations

Young people need a service model that allows them time to grow and learn, and to make mistakes.

As identified by Gaetz and Scott (2012) it is unrealistic to expect that young people can make a

speedy transition to living independently, especially young people leaving institutional care, whether

child protection or correctional care. These young people often have underdeveloped life skills,

inadequate education and lack of supports and resources (including income) that most young people

rely on when moving into adulthood.

This suggests that an extended period of support, including the possibility of supported transitional

housing arrangements where appropriate, can greatly increase the chances of success for these

vulnerable groups of young people. Within the youth projects, the staged approach to the provision

of support allowed for short-term goals and medium terms goals to be developed and achieved or

repeated as necessary.

Implications for women

Service delivery implications

For women, important service considerations included attention to restoration with children and

ensuring accommodation was located in a suitable area away from violent partners or contacts and

was child-friendly. For some young women, specific supports were needed around pregnancy and

child-birth. Women from CALD backgrounds were referred to language and ethnic specific services

and support as appropriate. Many female prisoners have histories of mental illness and sexual

trauma which need to be sensitively addressed. All transition programs that include women as

clients need to incorporate consideration of specific issues for women in their service delivery

model.


Page | 47

6.4. Other insights gained that can enrich the evidence base

The significant overlap between a juvenile justice experience and out-of-home careplacement was confirmed

The youth projects confirmed the findings reported in the literature that young people who are

involved with the juvenile justice system are also highly likely to have experienced one or more out-

of-home care placements (see p.17). For example, amongst the ten young people interviewed for

the evaluation, there was a 40% overlap, where the young person could have been in either of the

leaving care or Juvenile Justice projects given their backgrounds. 9

The value of a similar holistic model applied to youth and adults across the continuum holdsthe potential for breaking the cycle of offending and incarceration

Given the high rates of prisoners who have histories of contact with the juvenile justice system, the

youth projects indicate that there is great potential to reduce their longer term trajectory into adult

offending through investment in intensive wrap around service models for them at an early stage.

6.5. Future research that could strengthen the evidence in this area

There is a need for longitudinal studies that are carefully structured to differentiate between

different client needs and characteristics and responses to different elements of the service models.

Questions that could be explored include:

Is early intervention at the point of first or second contact with the juvenile justice systemeffective in averting homelessness and ongoing juvenile justice system involvement?

Project 2.21 (SWITCH-JJ) worked well for young people exiting Juvenile Justice Centres but it may be

that an increased focus on intervening earlier in the process of engagement with the criminal justice

system could divert people from homelessness and further criminal activity earlier in their lives. The

Youth Information, Resources and Court Support Program which was started on the MNC by SWITCH

was exploring this possibility. Further research and trialling of this approach would allow more

evidence to be gathered about its efficacy.

Who should have priority of access?

How can resources be more targeting to have the greatest impact for reducing bothhomelessness and recidivism?

The THaSS project worked well for women, however it is not evident the extent to which those with

high needs were targeted who may have been at low risk of re-offending, and potentially equally

well served by accessing other less intensive mainstream services. Closer attention to selection of

clients based on risk may result in more efficient use of resources.

The SWITCH program worked well for young people exiting Juvenile Justice Centres but it may be

that an increased focus on intervening earlier in the process of engagement with the criminal justice

system could divert people from homelessness and further criminal activity earlier in their lives. See

comments about the Youth Information, Resources and Court Support Program above.

9Of the three JJ clients interviewed, two had an out of home background and of the six YPLC clients

interviewed, two had a juvenile justice background.


Page | 48

What is the appropriate program length?

There were clear views across all projects that the capacity to offer 12 months of support was a

major strength of the models, but the question remains as to whether an even longer period could

enable more people exiting institutions to avoid homelessness. Insufficient time has elapsed to test

the sustainability of the gains that were made by individuals during the projects; it is not clear if

follow-up intervention could further strengthen the gains which have been made.

Would the provision of housing stock as part of the program improve program outcomes?

One of the projects had direct access to community housing in its first year of operation. Further

research could test whether tied housing, such as through community housing allocations or the

inclusion of “head lease” arrangements could enable projects to achieve both housing and non-

housing outcomes in a more timely and sustainable manner.

The experience of individuals who were not successful in the project

It was not possible within the scope of the evaluations to seek the views of clients who had not been

successful in the various projects or who had chosen not to take up the offer of referral to a project.

Further research with these people may provide additional evidence about the changes which would

be required to improve their chances of successful transition to stable accommodation and

independent living.

Finally, any future research as well as program monitoring should include the development of clear

understanding and agreement with service providers around the specific quantitative data to be

collected and take into account the feasibility of data collection, the systems for collecting and

reporting the data to ensure its integrity, and its interface with any other internal and external

reporting obligations.


Page | 49

APPENDIX 1: REFERENCES

Aidala, A, Bozak, A, Yomogida, M and McAllister, W 2011, FUSE evaluation: Understanding multiple

and varied cycles of homelessness and incarceration. Presentation available from:

http://www.columbia-

chps.org/assets/firefly/files/files/pdfs_grand_rounds_powerpoints/Aidala_et_al._05-26-2011rr.pdf.

[24 October2012].

Andrews, J & Bonta, J 2010, ‘Rehabilitating criminal justice policy’, Psychology Policy and Law, vol.

15, no. 1, pp. 39-55.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2011. Census of Population and Housing: Estimating

homelessness, 2011. ABS Available from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/2049.0 [1

February 2013].

Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) 2004, ‘The role of housing in preventing re-

offending’, AHURI Research and policy bulletin. Iss. 36.

Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) 2009, Evidence to inform NSW

homelessness action priorities 2009-2010. Unpublished document.

Australian Human Rights Commission 2005, Social Justice Report. Report of the Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander Justice Commission, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney.

Baldry, E, McDonnell, P, Maplestone, M & Peeters, M 2003, ‘Australian prisoners’ post-release

housing’, Current Issues in Criminal justice, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 155-169.

Baldry, E & McCausland, R 2007, ‘Aboriginal women post-release housing literature review’, in

Baldry, E, Ruddock & Taylor, J, 2007, Aboriginal women with dependent children leaving prison

project. Needs analysis report. UNSW, Homelessness NSW, NSW Department of Community

Services.

Baldry, E 2007, Throughcare - making the policy a reality. Presentation to Deakin University.

Available from

http://www.deakin.edu.au/health/psychology/research/ease/2007%20Conference/files/Baldry-

presentation.pdf [24 November 2012].

Baldry, E, Dowse, L, McCausland, R, Clarence, M 2012, Lifecourse institutional costs of homelessness

for vulnerable groups, School of Social Sciences, UNSW, revised version November 2012.

Barker, J 2010, ‘Everywhere but nowhere; the lives of homeless youth in Canberra’, PhD thesis,

Australian National University.

Biddle, N 2012, ‘Indigenous housing need: CAEPR Indigenous Population Project 2011 Census Papers.

Paper 3. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Canberra.


Page | 50

Bonta, J, Bourgon, G, Rugge, T, Scott, T-L, Yessine, AK, Gutierrez, L & Li, J 2010, Public Safety Canada

2010, Risk needs responsivity in the real world. Available from:

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/2010-01-rnr-eng.pdf. [10 December 2012].

Borzycki, R & Baldry, E 2003, “Promoting Integration: The provision of prisoner post-release services,

Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Australian Institute of Criminology.

Borzycki, M 2005, Interventions for prisoners returning to the community. A report prepared by the

Australian Institute of Criminology for the Community Safety and justice Branch of the Australian

Government Attorney-General’s Department.

British Columbia Ministry of Housing and Social Development (undated), Homelessness intervention

project: Review and assessment,

http://www.hsd.gov.bc.ca/publicat/pdf/HIP_review_assessment_report.pdf[july 2012].

Bruce, J, Boyce, K, Campbell, J, Harrington, J, Major, D & Williams, A 2009, Youth work that is of

value: towards a model of best practice, Youth Studies Australia, vol. 28 no.2 pp. 23-31.

Cashmore, J & Paxman, M 1996, Wards leaving care: A Longitudinal study, Department of

Community Services, Sydney.

Cashmore, J & Paxman, M 2007, Longitudinal study of wards leaving care: 4-5 years after leaving

care, Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney.

Cauce, AM, Paradise, M, Ginzler, JA, Embry, L, Morgan, CJ, Lohr,Y & Whr,Y et al 2000, ‘The

characteristics and mental health of homeless adolescents’, Journal of Emotional and Behavioural

Disorders, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 230-239.

Chamberlain, C & MacKenzie, D 2009, Counting the homeless 2006, complete set. Cat. no. HOU 213.

AIHW, Canberra.

Coalition for Supportive Housing (CSH) 2011, Returning home: Emerging evidence and lessons

learned, www.csh.org/resources/returning-home-emerging-evidence-and-lessons-learned [July

2012].

Coalition for Supportive Housing (CSH) 2009, Frequent Users Service Enhancement Initiative (FUSE) –

New York, New York, CSH, New York,

http://documents.csh.org/documents/policy/Reentry/Reentry_NY_FUSE_2009.pdf [July 2012].

Community Restorative Centre (CRC), 2012, Annual Report 2012. Available from

http://www.crcnsw.org.au/images/annualreport/CRCAR2012.pdf [November 2012].

Corben, S & Eyland, S 2011, NSW Inmate Census 2011: summary of characteristics. Corrective

Services NSW. Available from:

http://www.correctiveservices.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/340786/nsw-inmate-

census-2011.pdf.[December 2012].

Corrective Services NSW (Corporate Research, Evaluation and Statistics), 2011, Facts and Figures

11th edition April 2011.


Page | 51

Crimmens, D, Factor, F, Jeffs, T, Pitts, J C, Spence, J, et al 2004, Reaching socially excluded young

people: a national study of street-based youth work, Discussion Paper. National Youth Agency,

Leicester.

Critical Time Intervention 2013, Critical Time Intervention, www.criticaltime.org [January 2013].

Cunneen, C & Luke, G 2007, ‘Recidivism and the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions:

Juvenile offenders and post-release support’, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, vol. 19, no. 2.

Institute of Child Protection Studies/Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and

Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) 2012, Literature Review: effective interventions for working with young

people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. AGPS, Canberra.

Juvenile Justice NSW 2009, Joint Tenancy Assistance Program Review Report (Internal Release).

Desai, A, 2012 Homes for the ‘Hard to House’. A model for effective second stage housing. St

Leonard’s Society of Canada, Ontario, 2012.

Everson-Hock, E, Jones, R, Guillaume, L, Clapton, J, Duenas, A, Goyder, E, Chilcott, J, Cooke, J, Payne,

N, Sheppard, L and Swann, C 2011, ‘Supporting the transition of looked-after young people to

independent living: a systematic review of interventions and adult outcomes’ Child: Care, Health and

Development. Vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 767-79, Doi10.1111/J.1365-2214.2011.01287.

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) 2012,

National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-

responsibilities/housing-support/programs-services/homelessness/national-partnership-agreement-

on-homelessness [September 2012].

Fontaine, J & Biess, J 2012, Housing as a platform for formerly incarcerated persons, What Works

Collaborative, available from: http://www.urban.org/publications/412552.html.[December 2012].

Fontaine, J, Gilchrist-Scott, D, Roman, J, Taxy, S & Gouvis, C 2012, Supportive housing for returning

prisoners: Outcomes and impacts of the returning home-Ohio pilot project. Urban Institute.

http://www.urban.org/publications/412552.html. [December 2012].

Gaetz, S, and Scott, F 2012, Live, Learn, Grow: Supporting Transitions to Adulthood for Homeless

Youth - A Framework for the Foyer in Canada, The Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press,

Toronto.

Gronda, H 2009 What makes case management work for people experiencing homelessness?

Evidence for practice. AHURI, Melbourne.

Hadley, A, Mbwana, K & Hair, E 2010, What works for older youth in the transition to adulthood:

Lessons from experimental evaluations of programs and interventions (fact sheet), Child Trends,

Available from: www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2010_03_09_FS_WWWOlder Youth.pdf.

Hems, L 2012, Role for evaluation in measuring social impact and addressing wicked social problems,

Presentation to the Australasian Evaluation Society, 31 October 2012.


Page | 52

Indig, D, Vecchiato, C, Haysom, L, Beilby, R, Carter, J, Champion, U, Gaskin, C, Heller, E, Kumar, S,

Mamone, N, Muir, P, Van den Dolder, P & Whitton, G 2011, 2009 NSW Young People in Custody

Health Survey: Full Report, Justice Health and Juvenile Justice, Sydney.

Jarrett, M, Thornicroft, G, Forrester, A, Harty, M, Senior, J, King, C, Huckle, S, Parrott, J, Dunn, G &

Shaw, J 2012, ‘Continuity of care for recently released prisoners with mental illness: A pilot

randomized control trial testing the feasibility of a Critical Time Intervention’, Epidemiology and

Psychiatric Services, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.187-93.

Johnson, G. et al. (2010) Pathways from out-of-home care, AHURI Final Report no 147, Australian

Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.

Kang, MJ, Bernard, D, Usherwood, T, Quine, S, Alperstein, G, Kerr-Roubicek, H, et al, 2005 Better

Practice in Youth Health: NSW Centre for the Advancement of Adolescent Health, the Childrens’

Hospital at Westmead & the Department of General Practice, University of Sydney at Westmead

Hospital.

Kidd, SA 2003, ‘Street youth: Coping and interventions’, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,

vol. 20 no. 4, pp. 235-61.

Lackner, M 2012, Prisoner Reentry and Reintegration: Perspectives of the women involved in

Outcare’s St John of God Women’s Program. Masters Thesis, Edith Cowan University.

Latessa, E 2006, What science says about designing effective prisoner reentry programs.

http://familyimpactseminars.org/s_wifis26c02.pdf. [29 October 2012].

Mares, A & Jordan, M 2010, ‘Federal aftercare programs for transition-aged youth’, Children and

Youth Services Review, vol. 34, no. 8 pp. 1509-18.

McDowall, J 2011, Transitioning from care in Australia: An evaluation of CREATE’s What’s the Plan?

Campaign (CREATE Report Card 2011), CREATE Foundation, Sydney.

Meehan, A 2002, Report on pre and post-release housing services for prisoners in NSW. NSW

Federation of Housing Associations, Sydney.

Melbourne Criminology Research and Evaluation Unit (MCREU) 2003, Evaluation of Bridging the

Gap: Final Report, MCREU, Melbourne.

Miller,M & Ngugi, I 2009, Impacts of housing supports: Persons with mental illness and ex-offenders,

Washington State Institute of Public Policy, Olympia.

Muller-Ravitt, S & Jacobs, E 2012, After foster care and juvenile justice: A preview of the Youth

Villages Transitional Living Evaluation, MDRC, available from:

www.mdrc.org/publications/627/policybrief.pdf.

National Reentry Resource Center (2012), Organisational website. Available from:

www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org [[July 2012].


Page | 53

National Reentry Resource Center (2010). Reentry housing strategies. Webinar, available from

http://nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/documents/0000/0814/Reentry_Housing_Webinar_Slides

_11.9.10_FINAL.pdf [July 2012].

Noetic Solutions 2010, A strategic review of the New South Wales Juvenile Justice System: Report for

the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Noetic Solutions Pty Ltd, Canberra.

NSW Government, ‘A Way Home: Reducing Homelessness in NSW. NSW Homelessness Action Plan

2009-014’, available from: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/72F4CCCB-3031-49F9-

BDBE-8D7CF3823157/0/HomelessnessFactSheet.pdf 2014. [September 2012].

NSW Government, 2013, Going Home Staying Home Reform Plan, Family and Community Services,

January 2013.

NSW Homelessness Community Alliance 2011, Homelessness and the Justice System Policy

Statement July 2011.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness 2011, Opening doors: Federal strategic plan to

prevent and end homelessness: Update 2011. Available from:

http://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_FSPUpdate_2012_12312.pdf

[July2012].

Willis, M & Makkai, T 2008, ‘Ex-prisoners and homelessness: some key issues’, Parity, vol. 21, no. 9,

pp. 6-7.

Women in Prison Advocacy Network (WIPAN) 2012, Dreaming of a Safe home. Consumers and

community workers’ perspectives on housing and support needs of women leaving prison in NSW.

Unpublished report, August 2012.

Women in Prison Advocacy Network (WIPAN) 2012, The Report: The pilot WIPAN Mentoring

Program 200902011. WIPAN Unpublished report, August 2012.

Date post:	04-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Final Evaluation Report for People Exiting Institutions ... · NSW Homelessness Action Plan...

Documents